PDA

View Full Version : Jesus Will Never Return



Ben Masada
June 13th, 2015, 12:10 PM
Jesus will never return.

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he meant universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly! Besides, Jesus' own gospel which was the Tanach, once dead, no one will ever return if you read II Samuel 12:23; Psalms 49:12,20; Isaiah 26:14; Job 7:9; etc.

jamie
June 13th, 2015, 12:18 PM
Jesus will never return.



And unless those days were shortened no flesh would be saved, but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.
(Matthew 24:22 NKJV)

It's for Jacob's people that the tribulation will be cut short.

aikido7
June 13th, 2015, 12:20 PM
Jesus will never return.

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!I would only add to your post that for me, Jesus returns whenever I call on him.

That's the resurrection to me. His power and presence are always available to all of us.

Bright Raven
June 13th, 2015, 12:23 PM
Acts 1:11 Modern English Version (MEV)

11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why stand looking toward heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you to heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Robert Pate
June 13th, 2015, 04:24 PM
Jesus will never return.

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!

Better find yourself a cave to hide in, Revelation 6:15, 16, 17.

serpentdove
June 13th, 2015, 04:40 PM
:dizzy: 2 Pe 3:4, Ro 11:25 http://nflfans.com/x/images/smilies/blind.gif

patrick jane
June 14th, 2015, 07:33 AM
Jesus will never return.

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!


not for you he won't - whatever messiah YOU are waiting for will never appear, your folks missed the boat -

you make no sense, and i think it's minion, not minyan. what a strange place it must be in your head. good day sir - :Patrol:

Reason7
June 14th, 2015, 08:11 AM
not for you he won't - whatever messiah YOU are waiting for will never appear, your folks missed the boat -

you make no sense, and i think it's minion, not minyan. what a strange place it must be in your head. good day sir - :Patrol:

Your ignorance is pathetic and very obvious. The word is minyan. Ever heard of Google? Or does your bigotry against the Jews prevent you from finding out what it means?

Your comments indicate you will just say what ever you think with no desire to know the truth of a matter. As a Christian, an ambassador of Christ you suck big time.

There are many like you here and it is THE reason TOL, along with mainstream Christianity, is losing members at an increasing rate. People like you, talking out the wrong end is exactly what the problem is. Get an education or go away.

I don't have enough posts to my credit to post a link to "minyan", you'll have to do it yourself.

patrick jane
June 14th, 2015, 08:33 AM
Your ignorance is pathetic and very obvious. The word is minyan. Ever heard of Google? Or does your bigotry against the Jews prevent you from finding out what it means?

Your comments indicate you will just say what ever you think with no desire to know the truth of a matter. As a Christian, an ambassador of Christ you suck big time.

There are many like you here and it is THE reason TOL, along with mainstream Christianity, is losing members at an increasing rate. People like you, talking out the wrong end is exactly what the problem is. Get an education or go away.

I don't have enough posts to my credit to post a link to "minyan", you'll have to do it yourself.

i have to ?

i said - i think - minion - he is a minion of satan

his whole post and thread is ANTI-CHRIST, you must be jewish. it doesn't matter, i would say the same thing to any poster that is an enemy of Christ and the Cross - like you

go back to sleep - :Patrol:

P.S. - whatever is one word - Google it

rstrats
June 15th, 2015, 05:50 AM
Ben Masada,
re: "...the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)"


Actually, He didn't. He only said that HE wouldn't do it. He didn't say that He wouldn't allow it to be done.

Christian Liberty
June 15th, 2015, 08:26 AM
Matthew 24:22 is AD 70. Move along people.

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 01:35 PM
And unless those days were shortened no flesh would be saved, but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.
(Matthew 24:22 NKJV)

It's for Jacob's people that the tribulation will be cut short.

As I can see, you love the gospel of Paul!

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 01:41 PM
I would only add to your post that for me, Jesus returns whenever I call on him.

That's the resurrection to me. His power and presence are always available to all of us.

Yea, that's what I call metaphorical language. Of course it must happen many times during your lifetime because, every time you fall you must call on him to raise yourself up again but, I am not sure your companions-in-faith agree with you. Do you know something? I kind of agree with you.

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 01:53 PM
Acts 1:11 Modern English Version (MEV)

11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why stand looking toward heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you to heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

"They who, the angels?" It was in a dream. Every thing is possible in a dream, even for a cow to fly." That's from Luke's book of Acts after 40 days that Jesus spent with his disciples before ascension. Now, if you read the gospel of Luke in 24:50-52 the ascension seems to have happen next day after the so-called bodily resurrection.

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 01:57 PM
Better find yourself a cave to hide in, Revelation 6:15, 16, 17.

No need. Jews are used to the light. Christians are the ones Paul expected to walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. (II Cor. 5:7)

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 02:03 PM
:dizzy: 2 Pe 3:4, Ro 11:25 http://nflfans.com/x/images/smilies/blind.gif

2 Pet. 3:4 - That's a good question to be asked to all Christians since Paul left.

Rom. 11:25 - That's about the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 02:10 PM
not for you he won't - whatever messiah YOU are waiting for will never appear, your folks missed the boat -

you make no sense, and i think it's minion, not minyan. what a strange place it must be in your head. good day sir - :Patrol:

I am not waiting for the Messiah to come. The remnant of the Messiah has already returned to the Land of Israel. If you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

Minyan in Hebrew is the number of ten adult Jews, whose presence on earth keeps salvation available to Mankind. (John 4:22)

Daniel1611
June 15th, 2015, 02:11 PM
No need. Jews are used to the light. Christians are the ones Paul expected to walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. (II Cor. 5:7)

Jesus Christ is the light.

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 02:14 PM
Your ignorance is pathetic and very obvious. The word is minyan. Ever heard of Google? Or does your bigotry against the Jews prevent you from finding out what it means?

Your comments indicate you will just say what ever you think with no desire to know the truth of a matter. As a Christian, an ambassador of Christ you suck big time.

There are many like you here and it is THE reason TOL, along with mainstream Christianity, is losing members at an increasing rate. People like you, talking out the wrong end is exactly what the problem is. Get an education or go away.

I don't have enough posts to my credit to post a link to "minyan", you'll have to do it yourself.

I am startle to read this testimony from the pen of a Christian. God bless you Reason.

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 02:19 PM
Ben Masada,
re: "...the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)"

Actually, He didn't. He only said that HE wouldn't do it. He didn't say that He wouldn't allow it to be done.

Actually He did. "...neither will I again smite anymore every thing living as I have done." In my language, this is a promise of God. (Gen. 8:21)

Ben Masada
June 15th, 2015, 02:23 PM
Jesus Christ is the light.

...as a Jew. That's why, from his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, he said, "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) That explains what Isaiah said in 42:6 that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles.

Daniel1611
June 15th, 2015, 02:27 PM
...as a Jew. That's why, from his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, he said, "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) That explains what Isaiah said in 42:6 that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles.

Did he say the News were the light if the world? The Pharisees are the light? No. He said His people are the light of the world. Jews that do not believe on Jesus Christ do not believe in the true God. They have taken up the star if their God Remphan. Unbelieving Jews are not the light. They are antichrist and I hope they get saved.

rstrats
June 15th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Ben Masada,
re: "Actually He did."

Not in Genesis 8:21 He didn't. Again, He only said that HE wouldn't "smite anymore every thing living...". Nothing is said in the verse about Him not allowing anyone else to do it.

everready
June 15th, 2015, 03:35 PM
Actually He did. "...neither will I again smite anymore every thing living as I have done." In my language, this is a promise of God. (Gen. 8:21)

Actually he said not with the waters of a flood.

Genesis 9:8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.


everready

MichaelCadry
June 15th, 2015, 09:01 PM
Jesus will never return.

The paragraph right after this says that He will.


A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

The poster didn't know what he was talking about. Our planet is on the verge of destruction. Just look at all of the nuclear bombs in different countries. Also how all nations are against her. The U.S. won't allow Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel, even though that is what Israel wants.


Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

The Lord God does not say that He will bring a universal destruction to destroy mankind. He says in the Bible that 1/3 of the Earth's people will inherit the Earth, and they shall be His children and He will be their God. You are just unfamiliar with the Bible.


Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Israel will not cease as a People before the Lord. They will just be moved to the New Jersusalem.


Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Jesus knew that the two texts were true.


Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!

Abraham wasn't a minion of people were involved except only those in Sodom and Gomorrah. That's all, Ben Masada.

God Bless You For Trying To Understand,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9:

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 10:56 AM
1 - Did he say the News were the light if the world?

2 - The Pharisees are the light? No.

3 - He said His people are the light of the world.

4 - Jews that do not believe on Jesus Christ do not believe in the true God. They have taken up the star if their God Remphan.

5 - Unbelieving Jews are not the light. They are antichrist and I hope they get saved.

1 - Yes, he was delivering his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews aka to a "multitude" if you are reading from the KJV. (Mat. 5:1) Then, when he finished his Sermon, the People aka "the multitudes of the Jews were astonished at his doctrine." (Mat. 7:28)

2 - You say "no" to being the Pharisees the light, because you are used to read in the NT about the anti-Jewish attitude of Paul against the Pharisees. Christians are totally mistaken about the Pharisees. You would be surprised to know that they used to teach poor Jews for free in their Yeshivas. Jesus could have been one of them because his parents were very poor. Then, years later, when Jesus started teaching, the Pharisees helped him to escape arrest first from Herod (Luke 13:31) and later from Pilate. (Luke 19:37-40)

3 - Jesus was a Jew and the Jews were his people if Logic means any thing to you.

4 - This is pure idolatry as a man cannot be God.

5 - Jews cannot be anti-Christ because the statement is totally illogical because the word "Christ" means anointed of the Lord and, Prophet Habakkuk said, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) So, the Jewish People is "Christ" and not anti-Christ. BTW, if you read II John 2:18,19, the antichrists are supposed to come from Christianity itself and not from Judaism.

serpentdove
June 16th, 2015, 11:13 AM
"2 Pet. 3:4 - That's a good question to be asked to all Christians since Paul left."Your stating it proves that the bible is true (2 Pe 3:4). :juggle:


[Rom. 11:25] That's about us saying see ya. :rapture: 1 Thess. 4:16, 17 :listen: Watch out for that last gentile to get saved. http://www.smiliesuche.de/smileys/wecker/wecker-smilies-0010.gif

"When your heart is blind, your eyes are worthless." ~ Darrell Ferguson Lk 16:31, 24:25, Ps 19:7

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 11:23 AM
Ben Masada,
re: "Actually He did."

Not in Genesis 8:21 He didn't. Again, He only said that HE wouldn't "smite anymore every thing living...". Nothing is said in the verse about Him not allowing anyone else to do it.

Yes, in Gen. 8:21, He did. Focus on the last part of the verse in the KJV. A universal catastrophe has never happened to Mankind since the Flood and Jesus concluded that the reason is because free salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22) Jesus meant universal salvation because, personal salvation is not free but conditional to the observance of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 11:32 AM
1 - Actually he said not with the waters of a flood.

2 - Gen. 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.


everready

1 - Yes, He did. "...neither will I AGAIN smite ANY MORE every thing living AS I HAVE DONE". How? With the Flood, of course!

2 - Gen. 9:11 - "All flesh" cut off means universal destruction of Mankind.

john w
June 16th, 2015, 11:41 AM
The "second coming"-"the second time:"

Acts 7:13 KJV
And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.


Hebrews 9:28 KJV
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation

Acts 3 KJV
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.


20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


"until"....


As Joseph was a "type" of Christ, and was recognized by his brethren, "the second time," when he appeared to them, so too will the Lord Jesus Christ be recognized by the believing remnant Israel, His brethren, at the "second time"/second coming; and, as Joseph's brothers mourned, upon realizing who Joseph was, and how they had mistreated him, so too will the believing remnant mourn, at the second coming of the deliverer, the Lord Jesus Christ, realizing, finally, who He was/is, and how they had mistreated Him, "pierced" Him, as it is written:


Zech. 12 KJV
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 11:56 AM
1 - The paragraph right after this says that He will. The poster didn't know what he was talking about. Our planet is on the verge of destruction. Just look at all of the nuclear bombs in different countries. Also how all nations are against her.

2 - The U.S. won't allow Jerusalem to be the capitol of Israel, even though that is what Israel wants.

3 - The Lord God does not say that He will bring a universal destruction to destroy mankind. He says in the Bible that 1/3 of the Earth's people will inherit the Earth, and they shall be His children and He will be their God.

4 - You are just unfamiliar with the Bible.

5 - Israel will not cease as a People before the Lord. They will just be moved to the New Jerusalem.

6 - Jesus knew that the two texts were true.

7 - Abraham wasn't a minion of people were involved except only those in Sodom and Gomorrah. That's all, Ben Masada.

8 - God Bless You For Trying To Understand,

Michael


1 - Let's wait and see. Even if atomic explosions take place, they won't be the end of Mankind as a whole. It was a destruction of the size of the Flood that the Lord promised will never happen. More than 8 people left is not a universal destruction of the size of the Flood.

2 - Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the day king David established it to be, except for the time of two spans of exile and, in our modern time, it has been the capital since 1948. Wake up and smell the coffee!

3 - Good understanding! The promise of God was of a universal destruction that will never happen again as long as the universal laws function properly. (Gen. 8:22)

4 - Nevertheless, every thing I say is documented in the Bible.

5 - Most of them already live in the New Jerusalem. You are unaware of the Land of Israel today.

6 - I totally agree with you. Jesus had complete knowledge of the Tanach. Now, of the NT, he never even dreamed it would ever rise.

7 - This statement does not make sense to me. Sorry!

8 - Thank you but, I still did not understand item #7.

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 12:10 PM
Your stating it proves that the bible is true (2 Pe 3:4). :juggle:

That's about us saying see ya. :rapture: 1 Thess. 4:16, 17 :listen: Watch out for that last gentile to get saved. http://www.smiliesuche.de/smileys/wecker/wecker-smilies-0010.gif

"When your heart is blind, your eyes are worthless." ~ Darrell Ferguson Lk 16:31, 24:25, Ps 19:7

Yes but, what will Christians do? Paul wanted Christians walking by faith and not by sight aka walk with understanding.(II Cor. 5:7)

serpentdove
June 16th, 2015, 12:31 PM
Yes but, what will Christians do? Paul wanted Christians walking by faith and not by sight aka walk with understanding.(II Cor. 5:7)

Your point?

See:

Doubt Medication (http://foodforyoursoul.net/?page_id=1418&file=1301) by Darrell Ferguson

serpentdove
June 16th, 2015, 12:32 PM
Yes but, what will Christians do? Paul wanted Christians walking by faith and not by sight aka walk with understanding.(II Cor. 5:7)

dup

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 12:35 PM
1 - The "second coming"-"the second time:"

2 - Acts 7:13 KJV And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph's kindred was made known unto Pharaoh.

3 - Hebrews 9:28 KJV So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;

4 - and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation

5 - Acts 3 KJV 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

6 - and, as Joseph's brothers mourned, upon realizing who Joseph was, and how they had mistreated him, so too will the believing remnant mourn, at the second coming of the deliverer, the Lord Jesus Christ, realizing, finally, who He was/is, and how they had mistreated Him, "pierced" Him, as it is written:

7 - Zech. 12 KJV 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

1 - When? It has been over 2,000 years and he hasn't even called to encourage the continuation of the waiting time.

2 - Are you sure the analogy is logical?

3 - Jesus would not contradict the Prophets who say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

4 - Does it mean that at the first time he appeared with sin?

5 - The only way to set thing right with God so that our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow is through repentance and obedience to God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19)

6 - The Jews had nothing to do with the suffering of Jesus which culminated on the cross. The Romans were to blame for every thing.

7 - This mourning will be of Judah about Israel, the Ten Tribes.

republicanchick
June 16th, 2015, 12:38 PM
Jesus will never return.


Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

!

not true--He said He would never flood the earth again

john w
June 16th, 2015, 12:43 PM
1 - When? It has been over 2,000 years and he hasn't even called to encourage the continuation of the waiting time

And? The LORD God is on your time period? Time between the promise to Abraham, of a son, and it's realization? Promise of the redeemer in Genesis, and....?

There are scores of examples in the book, of prophecies, and it's later ultimate fulfillment, hundreds/thousands of years later.


You'd know that, if you were honest on this issue, and survey the book. But you sre not/have not.

2 Peter 3 KJV

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,


4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Thanks for checking in, "scoffer" Ben.

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 12:44 PM
Your point?

See:

How does God want us to live? Darrell Ferguson http://foodforyoursoul.net/sermon/?yr=2015&mo=05

My point is that, since Paul juxtaposed "walking by faith" with "walking by sight," obviously he meant that to walk by faith, one walks in the dark of the night and, to walk by sight, one walks in the light of the day. Probably, he wanted his followers to walk by faith and leave the understanding with him.

It is only obvious that God wants us to walk with understanding.

john w
June 16th, 2015, 12:45 PM
2 - Are you sure the analogy is logical?



Translated: You've not studied the type/anti type re. Joseph, in Genesis.


You are dismissed.

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 12:47 PM
not true--He said He would never flood the earth again

What's the difference?

republicanchick
June 16th, 2015, 01:05 PM
What's the difference?

you are saying there is only ONE way to destroy the earth?

I guess you like to put God in a box



++

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 01:17 PM
And? The LORD God is on your time period? Time between the promise to Abraham, of a son, and it's realization? Promise of the redeemer in Genesis, and....?

There are scores of examples in the book, of prophecies, and it's later ultimate fulfillment, hundreds/thousands of years later.


You'd know that, if you were honest on this issue, and survey the book. But you sre not/have not.

2 Peter 3 KJV

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,


4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Thanks for checking in, "scoffer" Ben.

Well, have you read John 21:15-22? It is about the return of Jesus. After dinner, Jesus and his disciples went out and had a dialogue with Peter. Suddenly he stopped and asked, "Simon, do you love me?" Yes lord, you know I love you!" "Feed my sheep!" They went a few steps further and Jesus asked for the second time, "Peter, do you love me?" Peter said, "Yes my Lord, you know I love you!" "Feed my sheep!" They walked a few steps more and again, Jesus asked for the third time, "Peter, do you love me!" "Of course Lord, you know I do!" "Feed my sheep." Peter was getting annoying and asked, "What about John?" Jesus said, "If I want him to wait till
I return, what do you care?"

I know that's not literal but, the promise of his return was implied to be eminent. How eminent? We have no choice but to wonder. As you have made me see, to wonder in this case is to be a scoffer. I guess we can all scoff as long as we don't let any one else hear. Is that what you mean?

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 01:25 PM
you are saying there is only ONE way to destroy the earth?

I guess you like to put God in a box

++

No. What I mean is that, "Of the size of the Flood" I am pointing to the almost totality of Mankind and not the destruction by waters. So, neither by water nor by any other mean, Mankind will never be destroyed as long as Israel remains as a People before the Lord forever. That's all.(Jer. 31:35-37)

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 01:29 PM
Translated: You've not studied the type/anti type re. Joseph, in Genesis.

You are dismissed.

I have studied the Philosophy of type and ante-type but, here in the case of Joseph versus Jesus, one must be intoxicated with Christian preconceived notions to see what you do.

john w
June 16th, 2015, 02:05 PM
3 - Jesus would not contradict the Prophets who say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20

That is deceitful on your part, as you continue to "argue" this point, it is answered, but then you go into your "Alfred E. Neuman" act("What, me worry?"), or your "Wizard of Oz" act("Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"), i.e., you are not an honest seeker, but one who has an unteacheable "spirit."

You are not here to present an argument, but to "prove" that you are right, not able to be convinced. therefore, "....Neither do I tell you....."(survey Mark 11 KJV).

http://theologyonline.com/forums//showthread.php?p=4155199

Post #416


Jer. 31 KJV
29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.


dying for your sin = teeth set on edge
sin=eaten/ing sour grapes
dying for your sin = teeth are set on edge.


Thus, the point:children will not die for their parents' sins, but their own.

Same context in Ez. 18:KJV:


1 The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying,

2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Jacob
June 16th, 2015, 02:12 PM
1 John 2:28 KJV - 28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

john w
June 16th, 2015, 02:13 PM
I know that's not literal but, the promise of his return was implied to be eminent. How eminent? We have no choice but to wonder. As you have made me see, to wonder in this case is to be a scoffer. I guess we can all scoff as long as we don't let any one else hear. Is that what you mean?

Deceit. Many times events are "pegged" as "eminent," "soon," near," "at hand,"........................but were fulfilled hundreds/thousands of years later.


Sit down, scoffer. You are engaging in dishonesty. My evidence? Your posts.

serpentdove
June 16th, 2015, 02:15 PM
My point is that, since Paul juxtaposed "walking by faith" with "walking by sight," obviously he meant that to walk by faith, one walks in the dark of the night... :dizzy:

"2 Co 5:7 The Christian can hope for a heaven he has not seen. He does so by believing what Scripture says about it and living by that belief (see note on Heb. 11:1; cf. John 20:29)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1770). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

john w
June 16th, 2015, 02:15 PM
I have studied the Philosophy of type and ante-type but, here in the case of Joseph versus Jesus, one must be intoxicated with Christian preconceived notions to see what you do.

No, you have not. My evidence? Your "posts."

"preconceived notions"=sound byte cliche, serving as your "Hail Mary"


Weighty. Sit.

Ben Masada
June 16th, 2015, 03:33 PM
:dizzy:

"2 Co 5:7 The Christian can hope for a heaven he has not seen. He does so by believing what Scripture says about it and living by that belief (see note on Heb. 11:1; cf. John 20:29)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1770). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

Why focus on the reward of a heaven in order to do good? That's akin to treats given to dogs to perform well. Plato said in his book "The Dialogues" that the reward of virtue must be virtue itself.

Bright Raven
June 16th, 2015, 03:38 PM
Ben, Why have not addressed Acts 1:11

Ben Masada
June 17th, 2015, 10:38 AM
Ben, Why have not addressed Acts 1:11

My point is not that Jesus will return but when. He said in John 21:22 that he would return even before John died. What happened? It has been more than 2,000 years and not even a call he hasn't made to renew his promise.

john w
June 17th, 2015, 12:26 PM
My point is not that Jesus will return but when. He said in John 21:22 that he would return even before John died. What happened? It has been more than 2,000 years and not even a call he has made to renew his promise.

Do you believe that the book promises a messiah, the Messiah, the Christ, a deliverer?

Angel4Truth
June 17th, 2015, 12:38 PM
Jesus will never return.

False.


A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before. I would like to see his theory on that, the all of it being by natural causes, since its way more than that.


Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22) Actually God promised never to flood the world again, and promised that He would never again destroy all living things.

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) Verse says nothing of 'natural law and it isnt speaking of natural law.


Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)
Verse deals with promised Messiah coming to His people.


Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!

Yes, Jesus needs to come back, He promised He would, and the jews still havent received Him as Messiah, but they will.

God does all He proclaims.

Mocking You
June 17th, 2015, 12:43 PM
My point is not that Jesus will return but when.

Looks at thread title--"Jesus Will Never Return"

Huh, strange way of stating that he will return, the only question is when...



He said in John 21:22 that he would return even before John died. What happened? It has been more than 2,000 years and not even a call he has made to renew his promise.

Wow. Jesus didn't say he would return before John died. He said if he wanted to return before John died, why would Peter care?

John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

Noticed you didn't address Bright's point about Acts 1:11.

Angel4Truth
June 17th, 2015, 12:46 PM
My point is not that Jesus will return but when. He said in John 21:22 that he would return even before John died. What happened? It has been more than 2,000 years and not even a call he has made to renew his promise.

You don't seem to be able to read very well.

John 21:22-23 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"…

In other words, we don't know when John died or would die and it doesn't say Jesus would be back before-so.

If you always read scripture that badly, no wonder you don't understand it and make statements that are out there.

Ben Masada
June 17th, 2015, 01:04 PM
Do you believe that the book promises a messiah, the Messiah, the Christ, a deliverer?

Yes, I do. Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

Ben Masada
June 17th, 2015, 01:44 PM
1 - False.

2 - I would like to see his theory on that, the all of it being by natural causes, since its way more than that.

3 - Actually God promised never to flood the world again, and promised that He would never again destroy all living things.

4 - Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) Verse says nothing of 'natural law and it isnt speaking of natural law.

5 - Verse deals with promised Messiah coming to His people.

6 - Yes, Jesus needs to come back, He promised He would, and the jews still havent received Him as Messiah, but they will.

God does all He proclaims.

1 - False!!! Are you sure? Take a look at John 21:22. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved him and said follow me, Peter asked about John and Jesus said, "If I want him to stay till I return, what do you care?" From here, we can see that Jesus' return would be eminent. What happened? It has been over 2,000 years and Jesus hasn't even called to renew the waiting period for his return.

2 - I don't see the problem to take natural causes as signs for Jesus' return.

3 - God promised never to destroy the world again AS He had done with the Flood. He did not mention with waters.

4 - Angel, have mercy on me! The sun lighting the day, the moon and stars lighting the night, the stir of the seas and the roar of the waves are not they part of natural laws? BTW, if you read Jer. 31:36 in the NAB, the text speaks clearly: "If the natural laws give way or (cease) than Israel will cease as a People before Me forever."

5 - The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel.

6 - Don't worry about us, Angel. Jesus' return will only prove that we have failed and Jews don't like to fail.

john w
June 17th, 2015, 01:49 PM
Yes, I do. Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.

"Do you believe that the book promises a messiah, the Messiah, the Christ, a deliverer?"-saint John W


Ben: above.

Did He already come? Yes? When?

No? When is He to come?

Vs.

"The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel. "-Ben

Only those that are bullish on straight jackets, would "argue" that, ie., it is an event, not a person.

Vs.

Wait...it is a person...


"Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord."-Ben

Angel4Truth
June 17th, 2015, 01:51 PM
1 - False!!! Are you sure? Take a look at John 21:22. When Jesus asked Peter if he loved him and said follow me, Peter asked about John and Jesus said, "If I want him to stay till I return, what do you care?" From here, we can see that Jesus' return would be eminent. What happened? It has been over 2,000 years and Jesus hasn't even called to renew the waiting period for his return.

Already explained. You cant read.


2 - I don't see the problem to take natural causes as signs for Jesus'
return. The problem is that you miss other things and the biggest thing, we are separated from Him in sin and need Him as Savior. He is coming back to restore all that has been lost as He promised, and God does not lie.


3 - God promised never to destroy the world again AS He had done with the Flood. He did not mention with waters.

You don't know the scriptures.

Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."


4 - Angel, have mercy on me! The sun lighting the day, the moon and stars lighting the night, the stir of the sea and the roar of the waves are not part of natural laws? BTW, if you read Jer. 31:36 in the NAB, the text speaks openly, "If the natural laws give way or (cease) than Israel will cease as a People before Me forever."

There are more than just natural laws in play, you miss that part.


5 - The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel. :rotfl: Even your own rabbis would not state such a thing, as they wait for the appearance of Messiah even today.


6 - Don't worry about us my Angel. Jesus' return will only prove that we have failed and Jews don't like to fail.

Actually it will unite you all to God again, but you could have that today. Messiah has come, believe.

Ben Masada
June 17th, 2015, 02:16 PM
1 - Looks at thread title--"Jesus Will Never Return" Huh, strange way of stating that he will return, the only question is when...

2 - Wow. Jesus didn't say he would return before John died. He said if he wanted to return before John died, why would Peter care?

3 - 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

4 - 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

5 - 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die.

6 - But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

7 - Noticed you didn't address Bright's point about Acts 1:11.

1 - That's what it looks like after 2,000 years when he implied that his return was so eminent.

2 - No, that's not what Jesus said. You are mocking the text too, not only me.

3 - John had leaned back against Jesus! I don't think so. That must have been the disciple Jesus loved aka Mary Magdalene who BTW was married to Jesus.

4 - That's how Jesus spoke without implying any thing else.

5 - ...or that Jesus would not return.

6 - Jesus simply confirmed what and how he had said; that he would return still on John's lifetime.

7 - That's not Jewish. Probably the disciples were slumbering and had that thought in their minds, feeling nostalgic about Jesus.

Ben Masada
June 17th, 2015, 02:47 PM
1 - Already explained. You cant read.

2 - The problem is that you miss other things and the biggest thing, we are separated from Him in sin and need Him as Savior. He is coming back to restore all that has been lost as He promised, and God does not lie.

3 - You don't know the scriptures.

4 - Genesis 9:11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."

5 - There are more than just natural laws in play, you miss that part.

6 - Even your own rabbis would not state such a thing, as they wait for the appearance of Messiah even today.

7 - Actually it will unite you all to God again, but you could have that today. Messiah has come, believe.

1 - Probably because English is not even my second language but the third. I speak four.

2 - Prophet Isaiah said that what we need is to set thing right with God through the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19) No one is going to do that for us.

3 - If you do, what is taking you so long to teach me?

4 - Yea, you are right and I am impressed.

5 - Perhaps you are right again. I missed for instance atomic destructions.

6 - As a matter of fact, we still have Jews, even Rabbis, who expect an individual Messiah to come. The Logic though is that the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) Then we have Prophet Habakkuk 3:13 where he says, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord. Do you have any thing else to teach opposite to the collective concept of the Messiah? I am all ears.

7 - Wow! The Messiah has come! Where is he? Did you know that false Messiahs and false prophets will appear, performing signs and wonders? That's in Mat. 24:24.

Angel4Truth
June 17th, 2015, 02:53 PM
1 - Probably because English is not even my second language but the third. I speak four.

At least you admit you were wrong then about that verse.


2 - Prophet Isaiah said that what we need is to set thing right with God through the obedience of God's Law. (Isa. 1:18,19) No one is going to do that for us. Which was my point, that you ignored when you cited only natural law. I said its more than just natural law and you just proved it.


3 - If you do, what is taking you so long to teach me?

4 - Yea, you are right and I am impressed.

I did teach you, i cited the verse about the flood not happening again and then you just admitted being impressed, those sentiments were the same in my quote that you added numbers to, dividing them.




6 - As a matter of fact, we still have Jews, even Rabbis, who expect an individual Messiah to come. The Logic though is that the individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37) Then we have Prophet Habakkuk 3:13 where he says, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one. That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord. Do you have any thing else to teach opposite to the collective concept of the Messiah? I am all ears.

Messiah has come already and ancient rabbis admitted the time for Him to come had passed (according to Daniel) and they tore their garments claiming He would not come and had not come, rather than to admit Christ was Messiah. And now rabbis like to deny the prophecies of Daniel, to cover that up. You are not talking to an unlearned chick here.


7 - Wow! The Messiah has come! Where is he? Did you know that false Messiahs and false prophets will appear, performing signs and wonders? That's in Mat. 24:24.

Sitting at the right hand of the Father, waiting for you to come to Him to be saved. And yes, the verse there is about those of you still looking for one, and will be deceived by a false one, since He already came.

john w
June 17th, 2015, 03:34 PM
Ben Masada-Post #59.

john w
June 17th, 2015, 03:41 PM
1Are we to expect a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)

You only see the "warrior/conquering/physical salvation of Israel/king" anointed one/Messiah/Christ,not the "suffering servant/spiritual-soul salvation of Israel" annointed one/Messaiah/Christ.

And He is alive-the risen, glorified, ascended, seated Messiah!!!

The doctrine of the resurrection is "woven" throughtout the scriptures, both OT/NT.

Another thread.

SaulToPaul
June 18th, 2015, 09:32 AM
You only see the "warrior/conquering/physical salvation of Israel/king" anointed one/Messiah/Christ,not the "suffering servant/spiritual-soul salvation of Israel" annointed one/Messaiah/Christ.

And He is alive-the risen, glorified, ascended, seated Messiah!!!

The doctrine of the resurrection is "woven" throughtout the scriptures, both OT/NT.

Another thread.

Still true, saint john.

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

Mocking You
June 18th, 2015, 09:42 AM
1 - That's what it looks like after 2,000 years when he implied that his return was so eminent.

2 - No, that's not what Jesus said. You are mocking the text too, not only me.

3 - John had leaned back against Jesus! I don't think so. That must have been the disciple Jesus loved aka Mary Magdalene who BTW was married to Jesus.

4 - That's how Jesus spoke without implying any thing else.

5 - ...or that Jesus would not return.

6 - Jesus simply confirmed what and how he had said; that he would return still on John's lifetime.

7 - That's not Jewish. Probably the disciples were slumbering and had that thought in their minds, feeling nostalgic about Jesus.

Wow, you're a record setter for errors in one post. No point continuing any dialogue with you.

aikido7
June 18th, 2015, 12:24 PM
Jesus, as he always does daily, returned to me this morning.
Like those who formulated he came back from the dead or will come back in the future, Jesus' power and presence are available to anyone at any time.

Imagine how slowly news traveled in the first century. Two followers of Jesus heard the news after a month or two: THEY GOT HIM IN JERUSALEM.

But how could this be, the two wondered. For two months they had been lovingly carrying out Jesus' instructions to knock on the door of strangers, share a meal and do healing. What was really going on?

The pair then knew, the scales fell from their eyes. Jesus' power and presence had been with them all along, even after his crucifixion.

They had been traveling to Emmaus.

MichaelCadry
June 18th, 2015, 02:25 PM
1 - That's what it looks like after 2,000 years when he implied that his return was so eminent.

2 - No, that's not what Jesus said. You are mocking the text too, not only me.

3 - John had leaned back against Jesus! I don't think so. That must have been the disciple Jesus loved aka Mary Magdalene who BTW was married to Jesus.

4 - That's how Jesus spoke without implying any thing else.

5 - ...or that Jesus would not return.

6 - Jesus simply confirmed what and how he had said; that he would return still on John's lifetime.

7 - That's not Jewish. Probably the disciples were slumbering and had that thought in their minds, feeling nostalgic about Jesus.


Dear ben Masada,

Jesus will return very soon. So you can kiss that idea goodbye. Also, Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene. Jesus was single and only 33 when He died. Where did you get that He was married? I do believe strongly that Armageddon will happen this Autumn. That means Jesus will return after that, as a thief in the night. We shall all be surprised. It could happen next year or the year after that. But I strongly believe this Fall. Look at the signs on the Earth are. Jesus told us what to look for. What are we, blind? Let me know what you think about all of this. Also, you speak 4 languages. That's pretty darn good. I'm proud of you!!

Shalom ben Masada. God's Best 4 U!!

Michael

Ben Masada
June 18th, 2015, 03:29 PM
1 - Which was my point, that you ignored when you cited only natural law. I said its more than just natural law and you just proved it.

2 - Messiah has come already and ancient rabbis admitted the time for Him to come had passed (according to Daniel) and they tore their garments claiming He would not come and had not come, rather than to admit Christ was Messiah. And now rabbis like to deny the prophecies of Daniel, to cover that up. You are not talking to an unlearned chick here.

3 - Sitting at the right hand of the Father, waiting for you to come to Him to be saved. And yes, the verse there is about those of you still looking for one, and will be deceived by a false one, since He already came.

1 - That's a different subject. Natural laws here is related to the universal salvation from universal catastrophes. Personal salvation is related to the Law but subjected to Freewill.

2 - The concept of a coming Messiah is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile. That's why I agree that Messiah has come already. Nothing to do with Jesus. And with regards to the prophecy of Daniel in 9:24-27, I do not deny at all. The Christian interpretation of that prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. The Jewish interpretation says so.

3 - "Sitting at the right hand with God!!!" This sounds too anthropomorphist to me. The Lord has no body to sit somewhere and if Jesus is there, you are talking about more than one God which has nothing Jewish about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which is absolutely One. (Deut. 6:4)

Ben Masada
June 18th, 2015, 03:31 PM
You only see the "warrior/conquering/physical salvation of Israel/king" anointed one/Messiah/Christ,not the "suffering servant/spiritual-soul salvation of Israel" annointed one/Messaiah/Christ.

And He is alive-the risen, glorified, ascended, seated Messiah!!!

The doctrine of the resurrection is "woven" throughtout the scriptures, both OT/NT.

Another thread.

Please, a quote for resurrection in the Tanach.

Ben Masada
June 18th, 2015, 03:38 PM
Dear ben Masada,

Jesus will return very soon. So you can kiss that idea goodbye. Also, Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene. Jesus was single and only 33 when He died. Where did you get that He was married? I do believe strongly that Armageddon will happen this Autumn. That means Jesus will return after that, as a thief in the night. We shall all be surprised. It could happen next year or the year after that. But I strongly believe this Fall. Look at the signs on the Earth are. Jesus told us what to look for. What are we, blind? Let me know what you think about all of this. Also, you speak 4 languages. That's pretty darn good. I'm proud of you!!

Shalom ben Masada. God's Best 4 U!!

Michael

Here is where I got that Jesus was married:

The Wedding of Jesus

No, please, hold unto the stones, and no throwing until you hear what I have to say. Besides, that's not my final word. I am still researching the matter. That's a partial submission for some second thoughts on the matter. Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7, John 1:38; and John 3:2. In many other instances, he was addressed as Master, which means the same. The point is that a Rabbi in Israel just like senior Pastors among Protestants had to be a married man or about to get married. Otherwise, he would not be ordained as such.

According to Judaism, after the proper preparation whatever it was at that time, the Jewish "Theological" student would undergo the ceremonial "Mikveh" or immersion in waters and, if not married yet, to take care of that before ordination.

So, after Jesus' immersion in the Jordan River, officiated by John the Baptist, Jesus was seen in the next two days recruiting his disciples and leaving for Galilee. (John 1:29,35,43) And on the third day after his "Mikveh," The family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene. Wait! Put down the stones! I'll explain.

According to a certain custom, usually the mother of the bride would be in charge of the celebrations, but probably, Mary's parents had passed away, because she used to live with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus. I mean, they lived with Mary, who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a sort of maiden servant and Lazarus... well, I think he was a loafer-boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick
man anyway, considering that he died twice.

Okay, but back to the wedding, Jesus' mother Mary had to do the host job; and she did it quite well by giving orders around to the servants. And according to another custom, the bridegroom was in charge to provide the wine, which mind you, Jesus made it sure to be of the best quality. (John 2:10) I can assert for this custom because I was married in Israel and reminded of the custom, which I had happily to comply. The tale of the miracle was interpolated much later to deviate the probing attention of those who have a mind of their own from finding out what was really going on in Cana.

After Jesus' wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus' come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene. It must have been a very spacious and beautiful home, since Mary had the means to maintain it. Mind you that Mary would also take the tab for the expenses of Jesus' group of Twelve Apostles, along with some other women of course, who would tip it in from time to time.

Whenever Jesus would return from his missionary campaigns throughout Israel, the address was Bethany. To his wife obviously, although most the time, Mary Magdalene would follow Jesus as his beloved disciple, but never at the level of the Twelve. The Church later interpolated John as the beloved disciple for the same reason, to get the mind of the readers away from the thought that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. But it's not helping because the evidences are just too shouting.

Do we have any hint to pick up as evidence for any romantic approach prior or after their wedding? Yes, we do. After Jesus exorcized "seven demons" from Mary, she must have fallen in love with him. (Luke 8:1-3) And the expression "seven demons" means the struggle that Jesus had to go through to rescue Mary from her not so reputable business in Magdala, which granted her a title she could never get rid of. Mary Magdalene that is.

Then, in Bethany - where else? - when Mary was smearing Jesus' body with that expensive perfume, we all know, although we forbid ourselves to think about it, that Mary did not just throw that perfume at him from afar. No way! She did smear him all over even in terms of massage; so much so that some of the guests thought it ridiculous and criticized the act done so, publicly. (Mat. 26:10-13)

Then, while everyone else would address Jesus as Rabbi, 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 sufferings, as Rachel named her son Benoni before she died from child birth. (Gen. 35:18)

Later, when Mary went to the tomb area after Jesus' crucifixion, and saw the empty tomb, she never suffered more in her life. She wanted to take Jesus' body away with her. (John 20:15) Then, she was crying without consolation. At her travail, she saw a man standing by, whom she thought to be the Gardener.

"Why are you crying?" the man asked. Jesus knew why but he wanted to enjoy the answer from his beloved's lips. Alas! She did not identify him! It was too dark. But then Jesus tried her name just the way he used to call her. "Mary..." It's hard to say it in writing, but Mary melted all down and said, "Rabboni!" He was indeed the master of her sufferings. This is an expression with such a profound meaning in Hebrew or Aramaic that Mary jumped to hug him but Jesus, probably all in bandages, forbade her to cause him any more unnecessary pains. He would meet her later at more propitious circumstances. (John 20:17)

Then, after 40 days of some apparitions to the disciples, Jesus said goodbye and left his company. From then on, the names of these three peoples were never mentioned again: Jesus, Mary and Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus yes, but only in connection with his teachings by the Nazarenes, a Jewish sect organized by the Apostles. Joseph had to go along because, if he had stayed, he could be crucified for having cheated on Pilate regarding Jesus who was not dead when he took him off the cross.

Today, there are three speculations about their whereabouts. The first is that they settled down incognito in Talpiot, a small town not too far from Jerusalem, where some people have claimed to have found out the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Yoseph. I went there personally but just to be told that the area could not be explored by orders of the local Meier for being under an Apartment building.

The second speculation is that they left Israel and went to live in Cashmere, India, where a Russian Archaeologist is claimed to have found the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Yosef with the shield of David.

And the third speculation is the one of the Da Vinci Code that the three went to Europe and settled down in the Southern part of France in a small village and that Mary gave birth to a daughter, who eventually got married within the Merovingian nobility.

Whatever happened after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples, I don't endorse anything that has been speculated. My point is only to verify the truth about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. If that's true without the shadow of a doubt, we have only to be joyful that Jesus fulfilled also the commandment to get married and father children. (Gen. 1:28) Besides, a married man only adds to his honor for being so. Why deny Jesus the pleasure of being a man by experiencing the love of a woman?

Okay, now you can throw the stones. Nu! Halo! Where is everybody? Halooo! Well, I think they all left. They must have realized that they all have feelings too.

john w
June 18th, 2015, 06:53 PM
Please, a quote for resurrection in the Tanach.

No, I'm the director here; you are the dancer, rabbit trail /present a moving target master. As I requested-post #59.

Ben Masada
June 22nd, 2015, 11:12 AM
Here is the reply to post #59:



"Do you believe that the book promises a messiah, the Messiah, the Christ, a deliverer?"-saint John W

No. Take a look at Habakkuk 3:13. It says in there that, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord aka His People Israel.


Did He already come? Yes? When?

He has come three times already. First from Egypt, second time from Babylon and the third time from the four corners of the earth which is happening right now with the return of the Jews to the Land
of Israel.


No? When is He to come?

He is in the process of coming since 1948 when the third Jewish Commonwealth has happened. "The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel. "


Only those that are bullish on straight jackets would "argue" that, ie., it is an event, not a person.

It is an event happening to the Jewish People.


Wait...it is a person...

Prove it in the Jewish Bible. "Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord."

john w
June 22nd, 2015, 07:28 PM
Here is the reply to post #59:

Nope-observe, the deception:

"Do you believe that the book promises a messiah, the Messiah, the Christ, a deliverer?"-saint John W


Ben:

"Yes, I do. Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord."
Did He already come? Yes? When?

No? When is He to come?

Vs.

"The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel. "-Ben

Only those that are bullish on straight jackets, would "argue" that, i.e., it is an event, not a person.

Vs.

Wait...it is a person...


"Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord."-Ben


"He has come three times already. First from Egypt, second time from Babylon and the third time from the four corners of the earth which is happening right now with the return of the Jews to the Landof Israel ..... He is in the process of coming since 1948 when the third Jewish Commonwealth has happened. ....The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel...............It is an event happening to the Jewish People."-Ben "

Translation: sit, and spin...............

Ben Masada
June 24th, 2015, 12:06 PM
Nope-observe, the deception:

"Do you believe that the book promises a messiah, the Messiah, the Christ, a deliverer?"-saint John W

Ben:

"Yes, I do. Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord."
Did He already come? Yes? When?

No? When is He to come?

Vs.

"The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel. "-Ben

Only those that are bullish on straight jackets, would "argue" that, i.e., it is an event, not a person.

Vs.

Wait...it is a person...

"Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord."-Ben

"He has come three times already. First from Egypt, second time from Babylon and the third time from the four corners of the earth which is happening right now with the return of the Jews to the Landof Israel ..... He is in the process of coming since 1948 when the third Jewish Commonwealth has happened. ....The concept of a "coming Messiah" is a reference to the return of the Jews from exile to the Land of Israel...............It is an event happening to the Jewish People."-Ben "

Translation: sit, and spin...............

You have simply shown to be the worst Christian I have ever wasted my time to set up a discussion with. Why all this hostility, because I believe differently from you? This is a barbaric hostility you show towards someone you do not know but only because he is a Jew. This is close to anti-Semitism and I usually do not dialogue with anti-Semites. So, save your time from now on because you have just got into my ignoring list.

john w
June 24th, 2015, 12:29 PM
You have simply shown to be the worst Christian I have ever wasted my time to set up a discussion with. Why all this hostility, because I believe differently from you? This is a barbaric hostility you show towards someone you do not know but only because he is a Jew. This is close to anti-Semitism and I usually do not dialogue with anti-Semites. So, save your time from now on because you have just got into my ignoring list.

Thanks for the psycho babble, concession speech, in punting your own disjointed "argument."

And thanks for demonstrating that you are lost, clueless as to the definition of a Christian-"the worst Christian."

Christianity is "who" we are in Christ-identity.

Religion/Benny-"Do."

Vs.

Christianity-Done.



Religion/Benny-"Behave."

Vs.


Christianity-Believe.


Religion/Benny-man substituting himself for God.

Vs.

Christianity-God substituting Himself for man, in the person of God in the flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ.


Contrasts.


"I have ever wasted my time to set up a discussion with.."-you

That is the consensus about you on TOL, Benny. Face you...seared, defiled concsience, and all.

Get saved.

"This is close to anti-Semitism and I usually do not dialogue with anti-Semites. "-Benny

That's a serious, but false, satanic, emotional charge, Benny. Ask around the neighborhood about me, and you will find no more of a fervent supporter, of God's plans for the believing remnant of the nation Israel, than me. You have me confused with Preterists, and "Replacement" "theology" drones.

john w
June 24th, 2015, 12:34 PM
"It has been more than 2,000 years and not even a call he hasn't made to renew his promise."-Benny


Vs.

"Yes, I do. Since you did not mention which book, I found in the book of Prophet Habakkuk 3:13. "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord.........He has come three times already. First from Egypt, second time from Babylon and the third time from the four corners of the earth which is happening right now with the return of the Jews to the Landof Israel ..... He is in the process of coming since 1948 when the third Jewish Commonwealth has happened. ."-Benny

Tell us, Benny, the time from when He arrived 3 times, and its fulfillment.

Habakkuk 3:13 written when?


I thought so.


Sit down.

Daniel1611
June 24th, 2015, 12:41 PM
Nice

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 11:35 AM
Dear ben Masada,

Also, Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene. Jesus was single and only 33 when He died. Where did you get that He was married?

Shalom ben Masada. God's Best 4 U!!

Michael

Well Michael, did you read post #72 about the wedding of Jesus in Cana of the Galilee? That's where I got the news that Jesus was married. Read and you will also find out who was Jesus' real beloved disciple. Sorry if I had to rain on your parade.

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 12:06 PM
Well Michael, did you read post #72 about the wedding of Jesus in Cana of the Galilee? That's where I got the news that Jesus was married. Read and you will also find out who was Jesus' real beloved disciple. Sorry if I had to rain on your parade.It does not say Jesus was married.

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 01:52 PM
It does not say Jesus was married.

Does it say Jesus was NOT married? No. So, what are you talking about? That's called "filling in the blanks"; then, you gather the evidences. If it makes the sense you need, you will adopt the idea if Christian preconceived notions are out of the way.

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 01:55 PM
Does it say Jesus was NOT married? No. So, what are you talking about? That's called "filling in the blanks"; then, you gather the evidences. If it makes the sense to the reader he or she will adopt the idea if Christian preconceived notions are out of the way.People are not born married Ben Masada. The default is singleness, not marriage. But the Bible (the NT) speaks against those who would forbid marriage.

It is no wonder that people try to prove that Jesus was married. The Bible doesn't say He was.

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 02:01 PM
People are not born married Ben Masada. The default is singleness, not marriage. But the Bible (the NT) speaks against those who would forbid marriage.

It is no wonder that people try to prove that Jesus was married. The Bible doesn't say He was.

Again! Does the NT say he was not? You have just given me an evidence that Jesus was married by mentioning that the NT speaks against those who would forbid marriage. The best way not to forbid marriage is by being married oneself.

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Again! Does the NT say he was not? You have just given me an evidence that Jesus was married by mentioning that the NT speaks against those who would forbid marriage. The best way not to forbid marriage is by being married oneself.Being single and forbidding marriage are two different things.

I know Jesus was single. I do not know that Jesus married. The Bible doesn't speak to the matter of if Jesus was married.

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 02:15 PM
Being single and forbidding marriage are two different things.

I know Jesus was single. I do not know that Jesus married. The Bible doesn't speak to the matter of if Jesus was married.

The NT does not speak of the matter that Jesus was NOT married. There are more evidences on the range of 100 to 1 that Jesus was married. If you read post #72, most of them are there.

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 02:18 PM
The NT does not speak of the matter that Jesus was NOT married. There are more evidences on the range of 100 to 1 that Jesus was married. If you read post #72, most of them are there.It is important when reading the Bible to not go beyond what is written. It is not written that Jesus was married. It is not written that Jesus was not married. Thus, logic says He was either single and then became married or He was single and never became married. But since the Bible does not say He was married, we know only the default... that He was single and not married.

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 02:37 PM
It is important when reading the Bible to not go beyond what is written. It is not written that Jesus was married. It is not written that Jesus was not married. Thus, logic says He was either single and then became married or He was single and never became married. But since the Bible does not say He was married, we know only the default... that He was single and not married.

Okay. Let's try to approach this from another angle, who was the bridegroom in the wedding in Cana of the Galilee? (John 2:1)

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 02:38 PM
Okay. Let's try to approach this from another angle, who was the bridegroom in the wedding in Cana of the Galilee? (John 2:1)Do you know who it was?

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 02:54 PM
Do you know who it was?

All evidences point to the fact that it was Jesus. So, I do take as a fact that Jesus was a married man.

Aimiel
June 26th, 2015, 03:06 PM
Guess what, Ben? He never left (spiritually). Those of us who know Him are filled with His Holy Spirit. :thumb:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Daniel1611
June 26th, 2015, 03:10 PM
All evidences point to the fact that it was Jesus. So, I do take as a fact that Jesus was a married man.

It says Jesus and his disciples were called to the marriage. Why were he and his disciples invited if it was Jesus's wedding? He wouldn't have gotten an invitation. Further, Mary tells Jesus, "they" have no wine. Also, it says the governor of the feast went to the bridegroom. It doesn't specify Jesus, so its probably not Jesus.

All signs point to the fact that it is NOT Jesus getting married.

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 03:16 PM
All evidences point to the fact that it was Jesus. So, I do take as a fact that Jesus was a married man.It doesn't say it was Jesus, Ben Masada.

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Guess what, Ben? He never left (spiritually). Those of us who know Him are filled with His Holy Spirit. :thumb:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Today, a today of almost 2,000 years already, Jesus has no longer a spirit within. As his body went back to the dust, his spirit aka his breath of life went back to God Who gave it. This is a reference to Gen. 2:7 when God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul.

Jacob
June 26th, 2015, 03:19 PM
All evidences point to the fact that it was Jesus. So, I do take as a fact that Jesus was a married man.I don't see any evidence that it was Jesus. And it does not say Jesus was a married man anywhere in the Bible.

Daniel1611
June 26th, 2015, 03:24 PM
Who is a LIAR but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.

Ben Masada
June 26th, 2015, 03:45 PM
It says Jesus and his disciples were called to the marriage. Why were he and his disciples invited if it was Jesus's wedding? He wouldn't have gotten an invitation. Further, Mary tells Jesus, "they" have no wine. Also, it says the governor of the feast went to the bridegroom. It doesn't specify Jesus, so its probably not Jesus.

All signs point to the fact that it is NOT Jesus getting married.

In the Hebrew, the bridegroom remains throughout the party place until the bride is ready and the bridegroom is "called to the Chupah" This "called" aka invited does not mean he was a guest but the bridegroom. I got married in Israel and I am able to tell you about this. His disciples were perhaps interpolated into the text as invited to deviate the mind of the reader from the fact that Jesus was the bridegroom.

Now, there is another evidence that Jesus was the bridegroom when Mary his mother reported to him that there was no more wine. How? Thus: According to the Jewish culture of the time, which is still used by Yemanite Jews, of all things in the Wedding party, the Bride groom was in charge to provide the wine; nothing else but the wine and, obviously, I was reminded of that ancient custom as I happily complied with. My wife is a Yemanite Jewish lady.

The mother of the bride, according to the costume was to be in charge that every thing went as smooth as possible. Probably Mary Magdalene was an orphan by then and Mary the mother of Jesus had to take the charge as you can see by her giving orders around to the servants. Then when they had run out of wine she obviously had to go to the bridegroom to remind him of the incident. Who could it have been if not her own son? So, she did as she was expected to and every thing was fine. Jesus got married and guess what? He could get his license to operate as a Rabbi because here is another evidence: Rabbis had to be married or they would not be licensed. Rabbis were akin to bishops and, according to I Tim. 3:2 a Bishop aka Rabbi had to be married. (which I thank Paul for having come to the rescue!)

Daniel1611
June 26th, 2015, 03:48 PM
She asked Jesus because she knew he could do it. If it was his duty to provide wine, why did he say "what have I to do with thee?". Looks like he was saying the wine wasn't his problem.

Aimiel
June 26th, 2015, 08:41 PM
Today, a today of almost 2,000 years already, Jesus has no longer a spirit within. As his body went back to the dust, his spirit aka his breath of life went back to God Who gave it. This is a reference to Gen. 2:7 when God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul.

Jesus is The One Who did the breathing. He is The Life. He said so, Himself...

"I am the*way, the truth, and the*life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

He also didn't stay. He ascended back to Heaven, where He came from.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 10:42 AM
She asked Jesus because she knew he could do it. If it was his duty to provide wine, why did he say "what have I to do with thee?". Looks like he was saying the wine wasn't his problem.

No, she did not know. Read John 2:11. The text says that the turning of water into wine was the first miracle in the life of Jesus. How could she have any idea that Jesus would perform a miracle if she had never witnessed one? The "what have I to do with thee" is not Jewish but an interpolation by the writer or the Church to uphold the Pauline doctrine that Jesus was the son of God. (Acts 9:20) Jesus was probably trying to disconnect himself from the excessive care of dependence to his mother.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 10:49 AM
I don't see any evidence that it was Jesus. And it does not say Jesus was a married man anywhere in the Bible.

Does it say anywhere in the NT that Jesus was NOT a married man?
Show me and I will comply with your finds.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 10:57 AM
Does it say anywhere in the NT that Jesus was NOT a married man?
Show me and I will comply with your finds.Owing to the absence of any indication that He was married, I cannot say that He was.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 10:58 AM
Who is a LIAR but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son.

If you read Exodus 4:22,23, Israel is the son of God. Prophet Habakkuk 3:13 took from there that Israel is the anointed one of the Lord. "Anointed one" is the definition of "Christ." It means that, if you deny that Israel is the "Christ" of God, you are one of the anti-Christs. BTW, if you read I John 2:18,19, the anti-Christs are supposed to come out from the ranks of Christianity. It doesn't apply to us for we belong with the anointed one of the Lord. (Hab. 3:13)

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 11:06 AM
Jesus is The One Who did the breathing. He is The Life. He said so, Himself...

"I am the*way, the truth, and the*life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

He also didn't stay. He ascended back to Heaven, where He came from.

Jesus was a Jew and, to claim that a Jew was God the Creator is a terrible act of idolatry. Regarding being the way, the truth and the life, Jesus spoke as a Jew. Any real Jew can say the same if he is speaking on behalf of the People. Now, that Jesus died and was buried, we all believe as a fact. But that he was raised from the grave and taken back to Heaven, you have only faith as an evidence. Now, if you allow me, faith lacks all Logic.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 11:18 AM
Owing to the absence of any indication that He was married, I cannot say that He was.

Owing to the absence of any indication that Jesus was NOT married, I can say that he was because of his claim to have come to obey the laws down to the letter. According to Gen. 1:28, it was a commandment to grow and multiply; and according to Gen. 2:24 all men SHALL leave his father and his mother and SHALL cleave unto his wife and become with her of one flesh. Now, last but not least, according to Mat. 5:18, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." If Jesus came to fulfill and he was not married, he failed the credibility of his word.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 11:19 AM
Owing to the absence of any indication that Jesus was NOT married, I can say that he was because of his claim to have come to obey the laws down to the letter. According to Gen. 1:28, it was a commandment to grow and multiply; and according to Gen. 2:24 all men SHALL leave his father and his mother and SHALL cleave unto his wife and become with her of one flesh. Now, last but not least, according to Mat. 5:18, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. If Jesus came to fulfill and he was not married, he failed the credibility of his word.You fail to see that it is not sin to not be married. This means you do not understand the command to be fruitful and multiply, as it was intended.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 12:39 PM
You fail to see that it is not sin to not be married. This means you do not understand the command to be fruitful and multiply, as it was intended.

Listen Untellectual, can you fulfill the commandment to grow and multiply without a woman? (Gen. 1:28) No, because to do so, you must cleave unto a woman and be of one flesh with her. (Gen. 2:24)

What is a sin, Untellectual? Sin is the transgression of the law. How do you transgress that law? By willingly remaining a single man for the rest of your life.

Interesting to notice, the sinful consequence of that law is applied on men only, not on the women. All we need is the permission of a woman to cleave unto her.

All men can do that, unless one be less than human or incapable by disease to do so. I am sure Jesus was quite attractive enough for Mary Magdalene to give him her "YES" with great satisfaction.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 12:45 PM
Listen Untellectual, can you fulfill the commandment to grow and multiply without a woman? (Gen. 1:28) No, because to do so, you must cleave unto a woman and be of one flesh with her. (Gen. 2:24)

What is a sin, Untellectual? Sin is the transgression of the law. How do you transgress that law? By willingly remaining a single man for the rest of your life.

Interesting to notice, the sinful consequence of that law is applied on men only, not on the women. All we need is the permission of a woman to cleave unto her.

All men can do that, unless one be less than human or incapable by disease to do so. I am sure Jesus was quite attractive enough for Mary Magdalene to give him her "YES" with great satisfaction.Again, it is not sin to be single. Everyone is born single, and those who die without having been married have not sinned in being single. Being single is not sin no matter how you look at it.

A reason for saying Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene as you presume, is that if He was married to anyone nobody would have accepted that Jesus has the church for His bride.

If you consider that the command to be fruitful and multiply was given to mankind, not individual men, you will see the command in its right perspective.

aikido7
June 30th, 2015, 12:47 PM
Jesus will never return.

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!Resurrection is not resuscitation. Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents and he obviously does not believe in a physical body after the crucifixion.

The early followers were enacting Jesus' program of eating and healing and going around the countryside in pairs spreading the Kingdom of God.

The account of the pair on the road to Emmaus is a profound metaphor that expresses the presence of the Lord was always available because the pair were carrying out Jesus' work for weeks after he had been killed (news traveled slowly in those days).

I myself touch base with Jesus daily. He has risen! I believe in the resurrection but it had nothing to do with his body. Resurrection, "taken up," sitting at God's right hand--all of these theologies were ways in which his surviving apostles could understand Jesus' horrific death.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 01:08 PM
Again, it is not sin to be single. Everyone is born single, and those who die without having been married have not sinned in being single. Being single is not sin no matter how you look at it.

A reason for saying Jesus was not married to Mary Magdalene as you presume, is that if He was married to anyone nobody would have accepted that Jesus has the church for His bride.

If you consider that the command to be fruitful and multiply was given to mankind, not individual men, you will see the command in its right perspective.

Okay, sin is the transgression of the law. Agree or not agree? And, to choose to live in sin is rejection of that law. Agree or not agree? Since you have decided what a sin is, we don't have to talk about that anymore.

How could a Jew have a church for his bride? If you don't want to mention Paul as the one who had his church as his bride, at least say that Jesus was not a Jew and every thing will be all right.

The command to grow and multiply was given to Adam. Was Adam only an individual or he represented all Mankind? As you can see, I hope, you are making sense no more.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 01:14 PM
Okay, sin is the transgression of the law. Agree or not agree? And, to choose to live in sin is rejection of that law. Agree or not agree? Since you have decided what a sin is, we don't have to talk about that anymore.

How could a Jew have a church for his bride? If you don't want to mention Paul as the one who had his church as his bride, at least say that Jesus was not a Jew and every thing will be all right.

The command to grow and multiply was given to Adam. Was Adam only an individual or he represented all Mankind? As you can see, I hope, you are making sense no more.Jesus was indeed a Jew. But the command to be fruitful and multiply was also given after the flood. It is a command for mankind, not one man. I didn't say Jesus has a church for His bride, but the church. That is, all who are called among the people of God in His name. Also, do you remember who it was in the New Testament writings that pointed out that it is wrong to forbid marriage? A person remaining single and serving God is not in any way forbidding marriage.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 01:36 PM
1 - Resurrection is not resuscitation.

2 - Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents and he obviously does not believe in a physical body after the crucifixion.

3 - The early followers were enacting Jesus' program of eating and healing and going around the countryside in pairs spreading the Kingdom of God.

4 - The account of the pair on the road to Emmaus is a profound metaphor that expresses the presence of the Lord was always available because the pair were carrying out Jesus' work for weeks after he had been killed (news traveled slowly in those days).

5 - I myself touch base with Jesus daily. He has risen! I believe in the resurrection but it had nothing to do with his body.

6 - Resurrection, "taken up," sitting at God's right hand--all of these theologies were ways in which his surviving apostles could understand Jesus' horrific death.

1 - Of course, I am aware that resuscitation is not resurrection!

2 - That's why Paul had to fabricate the doctrine that Jesus had resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8)

3 - Not Jesus' program but Paul's. In Jesus program the Kingdom of God was not to be spread among the Gentiles which I do not understand why. (Mat. 10:5,6)

4 - After only weeks! Jesus words were still according to Mat. 10:5,6.To live the Gentiles alone.

5 - Really! How could he eat and drink with his disciples after his so-called resurrection? (Luke 24:37-43)

6 - That's a nice metaphorical way to see the follow-ups of Ascension.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 01:47 PM
1 - Jesus was indeed a Jew. But the command to be fruitful and multiply was also given after the flood.

2 - It is a command for mankind, not one man.

3 - I didn't say Jesus has a church for His bride, but the church.

4 - That is, all who are called among the people of God in His name.

5 - Also, do you remember who it was in the New Testament writings that pointed out that it is wrong to forbid marriage?

6 - A person remaining single and serving God is not in any way forbidding marriage.

1 - What does it have to do with the issue in discussion?

2 - Yes, wasn't Jesus part of Mankind? So, the command was for him too.

3 - Either way, Jesus never even dreamed that the Church would ever rise.

4 - God's People was God's son according to Exod. 4:22,23.

5 - Yes, Paul, because he had chosen to remain single all his life and wanted no one to condemn him for being single.

6 - I know, but because he is of the kind of preacher who says, "Do what I say but not what I do for I am a sinner too."

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 01:58 PM
1 - What does it have to do with the issue at discussion?

2 - Yes, wasn't Jesus part of Mankind? So, the command was for him too.
Yes, Jesus was of mankind. So was Adam, Noah and his sons, and all of them each their wife. But it is not recorded in the Bible that Jesus had a wife, so it is conjecture. The command to be fruitful and multiply was not given to just one man. That is, I believe it was given to mankind in general. A single person should never forbid marriage, but that doesn't mean they have to get married to not forbid it.

3 - Either way, Jesus never even dreamed that the Church would ever rise.
Then how is it that He said He would build His church?

Matthew 16:18 NASB - 18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

4 - God's People was God's son according to Exod. 4:22,23.

5 -
God's people is anyone saved by the death of Jesus. That is, all those who have faith in the one true and living God, the God of the Jews.

Bright Raven
June 30th, 2015, 02:01 PM
Acts 1:9-11 New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,

11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 02:24 PM
5 - Yes, Paul, because he had chosen to remain single all his life and wanted no one to condemn him for being single.

6 - I know, but because he is of the kind of preacher who says, "Do what I say but not what I do for I am a sinner too."
Paul did not promote being a sinner, though he had sinned (which was not the case with Jesus) in his life as the rest of us have as well. He promoted being single if you can (to serve God) and being married if that is better to you (to serve God). In being single himself he was no different from Jesus. This is, marriage was designed by God whether it is for everyone or not. Sexual immorality, or sex outside of marriage, is strictly forbidden for single and married alike.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 02:24 PM
1 - Yes, Jesus was of mankind.

2 - So was Adam, Noah and his sons, and all of them each their wife.

3 - But it is not recorded in the Bible that Jesus had a wife, so it is conjecture.

4 - The command to be fruitful and multiply was not given to just one man. That is, I believe it was given to mankind in general.

5 - A single person should never forbid marriage, but that doesn't mean they have to get married to not forbid it.

6 -Then how is it that He said He would build His church?

7 - Matthew 16:18 NASB - 18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

8 - God's people is anyone saved by the death of Jesus. That is, all those who have faith in the one true and living God, the God of the Jews.

1 - So, the commandment to get married was upon him too.

2 - And so was Jesus with Mary Magdalene.

3 - Is it recorded in the NT that Jesus did NOT have a wife? No, it is not. So, let's stop with this paradox.

4 - Oh! Thank you! You are finally coming into commonsense.

5 - Good! So, you must stop forbidding Jesus to have been married.

6 - Again! How can you bake your cake and eat it too? Either Jesus was a Jew or he built his Church. Jews don't build churches bud synagogues. Paul was the one who built Christianity. (Acts 11:26)

7 - This was never said by Jesus but by the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of Matthew.

8 - No one has ever been saved by the death of Jesus because it would be a contradiction to the Prophets who say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 02:29 PM
Acts 1:9-11 New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel,

11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

Nothing Jewish about this post but the men you are using to promote the gospel of Paul.

Bright Raven
June 30th, 2015, 02:32 PM
1 - So, the commandment to get married was upon him too.

2 - And so was Jesus with Mary Magdalene.

3 - Is it recorded in the NT that Jesus did NOT have a wife? No, it is not. So, let's stop with this paradox.

4 - Oh! Thank you! You are finally coming into commonsense.

5 - Good! So, you must stop forbidding Jesus to have been married.

6 - Again! How can you bake your cake and eat it too? Either Jesus was a Jew or he built his Church. Jews don't build churches bud synagogues. Paul was the one who built Christianity. (Acts 11:26)

7 - This was never said by Jesus but by the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of Matthew.

8 - No one has ever been saved by the death of Jesus because it would be a contradiction to the Prophets who say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

Where does it say Jesus is married?

CherubRam
June 30th, 2015, 02:34 PM
1 - So, the commandment to get married was upon him too.

2 - And so was Jesus with Mary Magdalene.

3 - Is it recorded in the NT that Jesus did NOT have a wife? No, it is not. So, let's stop with this paradox.

4 - Oh! Thank you! You are finally coming into commonsense.

5 - Good! So, you must stop forbidding Jesus to have been married.

6 - Again! How can you bake your cake and eat it too? Either Jesus was a Jew or he built his Church. Jews don't build churches bud synagogues. Paul was the one who built Christianity. (Acts 11:26)

7 - This was never said by Jesus but by the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of Matthew.

8 - No one has ever been saved by the death of Jesus because it would be a contradiction to the Prophets who say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

Yahshua did not marry, he was an ancient being from heaven. But even if he did, that would not prevent him from being the Messiah. As you know, people are awaiting the day of the resurrection. In the mean time, if God wants to make an acception, He can. (As in accept)

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 02:36 PM
1 - So, the commandment to get married was upon him too.
It is not a commandment to get married.

2 - And so was Jesus with Mary Magdalene.
No so. You are promoting falsehood.

3 - Is it recorded in the NT that Jesus did NOT have a wife? No, it is not. So, let's stop with this paradox.
It is incumbent upon a person who feels a need to prove something to prove it and not its negation. You have it the wrong way around.

4 - Oh! Thank you! You are finally coming into commonsense.
You mentioned Adam, and he was indeed one man, the first of all men.

5 - Good! So, you must stop forbidding Jesus to have been married.
You are asking me to make something up that would pass for true. Jesus died without having been married. I cannot change that fact for you.
6 - Again! How can you bake your cake and eat it too? Either Jesus was a Jew or he built his Church. Jews don't build churches bud synagogues. Paul was the one who built Christianity. (Acts 11:26)
You need to accept all of the scriptures for what they say, not reject some scripture so you cannot be in favor with Paul. It doesn't even have anything to do with Paul but you reject it because you don't like Paul. This has to do with your feelings, not Paul.
7 - This was never said by Jesus but by the Hellenist who wrote the gospel of Matthew.
Incorrect. You want to make scripture written by Hellenists so that you can reject it.

8 - No one has ever been saved by the death of Jesus because it would be a contradiction to the Prophets who say that no one can die for the sins of another. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)Jesus never sinned Ben Masada. Every other living person who has ever existed has sinned. No one should die for the sins of another, and yet Jesus did.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 02:44 PM
1 - Paul did not promote being a sinner,

2 - though he had sinned (which was not the case with Jesus) in his life as the rest of us have as well.

3 - He promoted being single if you can (to serve God) and being married if that is better to you (to serve God).

4 - In being single himself he was no different from Jesus.

5 - This is, marriage was designed by God whether it is for everyone or not.

6 - Sexual immorality, or sex outside of marriage, is strictly forbidden for single and married alike.

1 - Did I say Paul promoted being a sinner? You are the one promoting his gospel that's okay to be single for life.

2 - Jesus was a sinner too for two reasons and not for being married. First reason, Eccles. 7:20 and, second reason, Mat. 23:13-33.

3 - A man serves God better in the company of a believing wife than single. The emotions are easier to deal with when one has a wife.

4 - Jesus was married. Prove to me that he was not. You can't.

5 - For every healthy man.

6 - So, it is better to have a wife. For instance, if Jesus did not have a wife, he could not have been licensed as a Rabbi. All the Pharisees had the same point of view.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 02:53 PM
1 - Did I say Paul promoted being a sinner? You are the one promoting his gospel that's okay to be single for life.
He is neither not promoting the Torah nor not promoting Jesus who promoted the Torah. It is your understanding of Torah that is wrong.
2 - Jesus was a sinner too for two reasons and not for being married. First reason, Eccles. 7:20 and, second reason, Mat. 23:13-33.You are wrong, not these scriptures. When Solomon wrote this he was correct. Jesus had not been born yet.
3 - A man serves God better in the company of a believing wife than single. The emotions are easier to deal with when one has a wife.
Your problem then in not being able to see the life of a single man is that your emotions are cared for by your wife so you see that need met in her and cannot imagine that need is not universal for all men.
4 - Jesus was married. Prove to me that he was not. You can't.
Did you know it is impossible to prove a negative?

For example, consider that we can prove there is a God, but we cannot prove there is not a God.

5 - For every healthy man.
You mean to demean and insult a man not by saying he is not a man but by saying he is not healthy.

6 - So, it is better to have a wife. For instance, if Jesus did not have a wife, he could not be licensed as a Rabbi. All the Pharisees had the same point of view.It matters what Torah says here, not what the Pharisees say. Plus, I don't think there were licenses to be a Rabbi. Certainly, Jesus the Son of God did not need one.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 02:53 PM
Where does it say Jesus is married?

A Rabbi was akin to a bishop and, according to Paul, all bishops are to be married each to his wife. (I Tim. 3:2) Otherwise, he can't be licensed to operate as a Bishop or Rabbi. Jesus was a Rabbi according to Nicodemus in John 3:2. Therefore, Jesus was a married Rabbi.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 02:56 PM
A Rabbi was akin to a bishop and, according to Paul, all bishops are to be married each to his wife. (I Tim. 3:2) Otherwise, he can't be licensed to operate as a Bishop or Rabbi. Jesus was a Rabbi according to Nicodemus in John 3:2. Therefore, Jesus was a married Rabbi.No licenses are mentioned, and it is your translation that says bishop then?

The question is if a single man can be a teacher without being a pastor or an overseer.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 03:00 PM
Yahshua did not marry, he was an ancient being from heaven. But even if he did, that would not prevent him from being the Messiah. As you know, people are awaiting the day of the resurrection. In the mean time, if God wants to make an acception, He can. (As in accept)

God can do every thing but one; the thing you wish He did or should have done. About Yeshua, I am talking about a Jew called Yeshua ben Yoseph from Galilee and married in Cana. (John 2:1)

What were the requirements for a Jew to be the Messiah which in your opinion Yeshua had to be the one? Do you happen to know?

CherubRam
June 30th, 2015, 03:11 PM
God can do every thing but one; the thing you wish He did or should have done. About Yeshua, I am talking about a Jew called Yeshua ben Yoseph from Galilee and married in Cana. (John 2:1)

What were the requirements for a Jew to be the Messiah which in your opinion Yeshua had to be the one? Do you happen to know?

That wedding was not his. The Rabbi's ruling on who is a Jew changed after Christ.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 03:18 PM
1 - It is not a commandment to get married.

2 - It is incumbent upon a person who feels a need to prove something to prove it and not its negation. You have it the wrong way around.

3 - You are asking me to make something up that would pass for true. Jesus died without having been married. I cannot change that fact for you.

4 - You need to accept all of the scriptures for what they say, not reject some scripture so you cannot be in favor with Paul. It doesn't even have anything to do with Paul but you reject it because you don't like Paul.

5 - Incorrect. You want to make scripture written by Hellenists so that you can reject it.

6 - Jesus never sinned Ben Masada. Every other living person who has ever existed has sinned. No one should die for the sins of another, and yet Jesus did.

1 - You have denied the book of Genesis. That's final.

2 - Okay, let's go your way and prove to me that Jesus was single.

3 - What did he die from, AIDS? Well, he spent 3.5 years of his life hanging around with 12 young men and in love with one of them called John. If he was not married with a wife, he must have died of AIDS. Doesn't that make sense to you?

4 - Paul deserted Judaism to found an anti-Jewish church and preach against Jesus' Faith which was Judaism. (Acts 21:21)

5 - The Apostles of Jesus were all Jews and I can prove to you that none of them wrote a single book of the NT. So, who wrote those books if not Hellenists former disciples of Paul? Think for a change!

6 - It means you reject also the gospel of Matthew as the text of 23:13-33 is concerned. Jesus broke the Golden Rule more than several times only in that text. the Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Catalogue.

Bright Raven
June 30th, 2015, 03:21 PM
A Rabbi was akin to a bishop and, according to Paul, all bishops are to be married each to his wife. (I Tim. 3:2) Otherwise, he can't be licensed to operate as a Bishop or Rabbi. Jesus was a Rabbi according to Nicodemus in John 3:2. Therefore, Jesus was a married Rabbi.

This was not to mean that he had to have a wife but was not to have more than one wife. :doh: Thus, still no proof that He was married.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 03:23 PM
1 - You have denied the book of Genesis. That's final.
No, I have disagreed with a specific Jewish interpretation of Torah, Genesis being in Torah. But this has already happened.

2 - Okay, let's go your way and prove to me that Jesus was single.
Did you want me to prove He was not single or that he was not married?

3 - What did he die from, AIDS? Well, he spent 3.5 years of his life hanging around with 12 young men and in love with one of them called John. If he was not married with a wife, he must have died of AIDS. Doesn't that make sense to you?
No. You are probably engaging in blasphemy here.

4 - Paul deserted Judaism to found an anti-Jewish church and preach against Jesus' Faith which was Judaism. (Acts 21:21)
The beliefs of Jesus were entirely in keeping with the whole of the scriptures, including that He the Messiah would come. Paul did not disagree.

5 - The Apostles of Jesus were all Jews and I can prove to you that none of them wrote a single book of the NT. So, who wrote those books if not Hellenists former disciples of Paul? Think for a change!
I do think. But I believe I rightly believe (think) you are wrong.

6 - It means you reject also the gospel of Matthew as the text of 23:13-33 is concerned. Jesus broke the Golden Rule more than several times only in that text. the Golden Rule covers the whole second part of the Catalogue.
No, I reject your interpretation which you were withholding which you knew I already know.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 03:31 PM
1 - Did you know it is impossible to prove a negative? For example, consider that we can prove there is a God, but we cannot prove there is not a God.

2 - I don't think there were licenses to be a Rabbi.

3 - Certainly, Jesus the Son of God did not need one.

1 - All right. So, prove to me that Jesus was single. Show me the quote that he was a single man and I'll be satisfied. You can't. Do you know why? Because he was married; that's why.

2 - So, why had Jesus to go get married in Cana soon after Mikveh before starting his Ministry?

3 - See what I mean? You don't want the truth that Jesus was a Jew but the Greek myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Have it as you wish.

Ben Masada
June 30th, 2015, 03:32 PM
This was not to mean that he had to have a wife but was not to have more than one wife. :doh: Thus, still no proof that He was married.

Okay, now it is your turn: Prove to me that he was single.

Bright Raven
June 30th, 2015, 03:34 PM
Okay, now it is your turn: Prove to me that he was single.

The burden of proof is on you. No where in scripture is it stated that Jesus was married. I believe you need to show where it says that he was.

Jacob
June 30th, 2015, 03:37 PM
1 - All right. So, prove to me that Jesus was single. Show me the quote that he was a single man and I'll be satisfied. You can't. Do you know why? Because he was married; that's why.
Do you remember when I said we are all born single?

Or, what does it mean to be single and not married?

Or, all married people were once single.

The question then is if He remained single His whole / entire life. I believe He did. Why do I believe this? Two reasons. One, the Bible does not say that He married, and it is the authority on matters pertaining to His life. Two, in the Bible it says that Jesus' bride is the church. This is a reference to marriage, in a way... but Jesus was not married so it is okay that this was said.

2 - So, why had Jesus to go get married in Cana soon after Mikveh before starting his Ministry?
I don't believe Jesus was married in Cana as you say.

3 - See what I mean? You don't want the truth that Jesus was a Jew but the Greek myth of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. Have it as you wish.
I only want what is according to scripture, which is God's word.

aikido7
June 30th, 2015, 04:24 PM
1 - Of course, I am aware that resuscitation is not resurrection!

2 - That's why Paul had to fabricate the doctrine that Jesus had resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8)

3 - Not Jesus' program but Paul's. In Jesus program the Kingdom of God was not to be spread among the Gentiles which I do not understand why. (Mat. 10:5,6)

4 - After only weeks! Jesus words were still according to Mat. 10:5,6.To live the Gentiles alone.

5 - Really! How could he eat and drink with his disciples after his so-called resurrection? (Luke 24:37-43)

6 - That's a nice metaphorical way to see the follow-ups of Ascension.The resurrection, in my view, was a true event but it had nothing to do with Jesus' physical body.

If anyone (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Hindus) take their faith's sacred metaphors as facts, then others around them will quickly conclude they are nonsense.

And with good reason.

Jacob
July 1st, 2015, 05:26 PM
I don't believe Jesus was married in Cana as you say.John 2:9-10 NASB - 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 11:56 AM
The burden of proof is on you. No where in scripture is it stated that Jesus was married. I believe you need to show where it says that he was.

Yes, I know. IMHO, I have proven to you with abundant evidences that Jesus was married but, Christian preconceived notions won't allow you to agree with me. Since you said also that it is impossible to prove the negative, now I am asking you to prove the positive. Prove to me that Jesus was single. Give me a quote in your NT attesting to that effect.

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 12:21 PM
1 - Do you remember when I said we are all born single?

2 - Or, what does it mean to be single and not married?

3 - Or, all married people were once single.

4 - The question then is if He remained single His whole / entire life. I believe He did.

5 - Why do I believe this? Two reasons. One, the Bible does not say that He married, and it is the authority on matters pertaining to His life.

6 - Two, in the Bible it says that Jesus' bride is the church. This is a reference to marriage, in a way... but Jesus was not married so it is okay that this was said.

7 - I don't believe Jesus was married in Cana as you say.

8 - I only want what is according to scripture, which is God's word.

1 - Please Untellectual, I am sure you can do better than that! The commandment to get married could not have been given to the unborn.

2 - Do you know something Untellectual? You don't have to worry about this. That commandment was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles. If Jesus was not a Jew we would not be talking about this today.

3 - Nah!!! Really! How could I have missed that!

4 - And I believe he didn't. First, because he was Jewish and, second, because he was a Rabbi aka Master. (John 3:1,2)

5 - Probably, because you are a Christian.

6 - Hence, you have decided that Jesus remained single all his life.

7 - So, who was the bridegroom in Cana? John? Any other of the apostles? If none, why was Jesus invited? Why was Mary the person in charge?

8 - Have you ever read II Cor. 5:7? Paul said that Christians are supposed to walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. Probably Paul wanted you to believe what he said and to leave the understanding with him. Embarrassing, isn't it?

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 12:32 PM
1 - The resurrection, in my view, was a true event but it had nothing to do with Jesus' physical body.

2 - If anyone (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Hindus) take their faith's sacred metaphors as facts, then others around them will quickly conclude they are nonsense.

3 - And with good reason.

1 - So, why would Jesus eat and drink with his disciples after his so-called resurrection?

2 - Not clear enough to the understanding. Can you translate it into easier terms?

3 - I am listening. What good reason?

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 12:41 PM
John 2:9-10 NASB - 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

Who provided the good wine for the end of the wedding? Jesus did it. So, who was the bridegroom the headwaiter called to ask why he had reserved the best wine to the end? Do you have any idea?

Jacob
July 3rd, 2015, 01:15 PM
1 - Please Untellectual, I am sure you can do better than that! The commandment to get married could not have been given to the unborn.
What commandment to get married?

Certainly marriage can only involve those who have already been born.

In the Bible there are commands for different people. It is important to know all of these commands, but they don't apply to every person.

For example, there are commands for men and commands for women. They are different. They are not the same commands. But if you are a married man for certain you should know both.

2 - Do you know something Untellectual? You don't have to worry about this. That commandment was given to the Jews, not the Gentiles. If Jesus was not a Jew we would not be talking about this today.
Jesus is a Jew, correct. Are you saying the 613 commands of Torah are not for me?

3 - Nah!!! Really! How could I have missed that!

4 - And I believe he didn't. First, because he was Jewish and, second, because he was a Rabbi aka Master. (John 3:1,2)
Where is your rule that a Rabbi must be married?

5 - Probably, because you are a Christian.
Do you trust the Biblical record? Do you trust the Biblical record as it pertains to Jesus? Do you believe Jesus' life is recorded in the words of the Bible?

6 - Hence, you have decided that Jesus remained single all his life.
Some have decided that because Jesus is married to the church He not ever married to any one person.

My line of reasoning is different. It is that the Bible does not say Jesus was ever married... so when it speaks to the church (or, Israel) as the bride of Christ, it makes sense.

7 - So, who was the bridegroom in Cana? John? Any other of the apostles? If none, why was Jesus invited? Why was Mary the person in charge?
I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

8 - Have you ever read II Cor. 5:7? Paul said that Christians are supposed to walk by faith and not by sight aka understanding. Probably Paul wanted you to believe what he said and to leave the understanding with him. Embarrassing, isn't it?
What is embarrassing to me is that I am talking to you and you bring up something you don't understand and imply I should be embarrassed by it.
Who provided the good wine for the end of the wedding? Jesus did it. So, who was the bridegroom the headwaiter called to ask why he had reserved the best wine to the end? Do you have any idea?I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 01:27 PM
What commandment to get married?

Gen. 2:24.


Certainly marriage can only involve those who have already been born.

Really! Wow!


In the Bible there are commands for different people. It is important to know all of these commands, but they don't apply to every person.

For example, there are commands for men and commands for women. They are different. They are not the same commands. But if you are a married man for certain you should know both.

Jesus is a Jew, correct. Are you saying the 613 commands of Torah are not for me?

Where is your rule that a Rabbi must be married?

Do you trust the Biblical record? Do you trust the Biblical record as it pertains to Jesus? Do you believe Jesus' life is recorded in the words of the Bible?

Some have decided that because Jesus is married to the church He not ever married to any one person.

My line of reasoning is different. It is that the Bible does not say Jesus was ever married... so when it speaks to the church (or, Israel) as the bride of Christ, it makes sense.

I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

What is embarrassing to me is that I am talking to you and you bring up something you don't understand and imply I should be embarrassed by it.I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

aikido7
July 3rd, 2015, 01:28 PM
Jesus returns to me every day.

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 01:37 PM
[quote]What commandment to get married?

Gen. 2:24.


Certainly marriage can only involve those who have already been born.

Really! Wow!


In the Bible there are commands for different people. It is important to know all of these commands, but they don't apply to every person.

You are getting wiser by the moment.


For example, there are commands for men and commands for women. They are different. They are not the same commands. But if you are a married man for certain you should know both.

Didn't I say so above? You are indeed getting wiser from a moment to another?


Jesus is a Jew, correct. Are you saying the 613 commands of Torah are not for me?

As Judaism is concerned, all men are subject to all the commandments; women only the negative commandments as in thou shall not.


Where is your rule that a Rabbi must be married?

Rabbis are of the same kind of Bishops. Paul said that they all must be married. (I Tim. 3:2)


Do you trust the Biblical record? Do you trust the Biblical record as it pertains to Jesus? Do you believe Jesus' life is recorded in the words of the Bible?

Since you mean the NT, the answer is no.


Some have decided that because Jesus is married to the church He not ever married to any one person.

Amazing! A Jew married to the Church.


My line of reasoning is different. It is that the Bible does not say Jesus was ever married... so when it speaks to the church (or, Israel) as the bride of Christ, it makes sense.

I can see that what makes sense to you is Replacement Theology.


I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

Yes, I do.


What is embarrassing to me is that I am talking to you and you bring up something you don't understand and imply I should be embarrassed by it.I don't know who the bridegroom was. Do you believe it was Jesus?

Yes, I do.

Jacob
July 3rd, 2015, 01:48 PM
Gen. 2:24.
This is true for the men who do. I'm talking about the content of the verse. I believe you are saying this verse is about marriage. Are you saying it is an implicit command? I don't see it as a command.
Really! Wow!

You are getting wiser by the moment.

As Judaism is concerned, all men are subject to all the commandments; women only the negative commandments as in thou shall not.
There are positive commands and prohibitions is how I understand it?

Rabbis are of the same kind of Bishops. Paul said that they all must be married. (I Tim. 3:2)
The NKJV does say bishops, yes. But Rabbis are not mentioned. All bishops then are teachers and married, but not all teachers are bishops and married. Unless the discussion is that the man must be a one wife kind of man. Digresses.

Since you mean the NT, the answer is no.That will make things difficult for you, as it is the definitive source for the life of Jesus.

Amazing! A Jew married to the Church.
Or Israel if you like. The Son of God has a bride.

I can see that what makes sense to you is Replacement Theology.
No, the church does not replace Israel. You are mistaken.

Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.Why? How?

Are you saying in your view the Biblical record says He is the bridegroom? How is that possible if the bridegroom is a different person from Jesus who gave instruction as to what to do?

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 02:05 PM
[quote]This is true for the men who do. I'm talking about the content of the verse. I believe you are saying this verse is about marriage. Are you saying it is an implicit command? I don't see it as a command.

Put together Gen. 2:24 with Gen. 1:28 and the commandment will jump right before your eyes.


There are positive commands and prohibitions is how I understand it?

You are right. It follows the same pattern.


The NKJV does say bishops, yes. But Rabbis are not mentioned. All bishops then are teachers and married, but not all teachers are bishops and married. Unless the discussion is that the man must be a one wife kind of man. Digresses. That will make things difficult for you, as it is the definitive source for the life of Jesus.

John 3:1,2. Pharisee Nicodemus used to address Jesus as a Rabbi.


Or Israel if you like. The Son of God has a bride. No, the church does not replace Israel. You are mistaken.

Let's keep Israel out of the picture, Please!


Why? How?

For one, Jesus was a Jew, and for another, he was a Rabbi. (John 3:1,2)


Are you saying in your view the Biblical record says He is the bridegroom? How is that possible if the bridegroom is a different person from Jesus who gave instruction as to what to do?

In the thread about the wedding of Jesus in Cana, I present many evidences that Jesus was the same as the bridegroom. Can you show me one to disprove that assertion of mine?

Jacob
July 3rd, 2015, 02:26 PM
Put together Gen. 2:24 with Gen. 1:28 and the commandment will jump right before your eyes.
Genesis 1:28 is a command to mankind, not individual men. Genesis 2:24 is an observation/teaching/doctrine, not a command.

You are right. It follows the same pattern.
Can we look at the Ten Commandments to see if you are correct?

John 3:1,2. Pharisee Nicodemus used to address Jesus as a Rabbi.
I have no problem with Nicodemus addressing Jesus as a Rabbi. Nicodemus was not the only one (to address Jesus as a Rabbi).

Let's keep Israel out of the picture, Please!
Did you bring up Replacement Theology in order to say this?

For one, Jesus was a Jew, and for another, he was a Rabbi. (John 3:1,2)
Jesus being a Jew and a Rabbi does not make Him the bridegroom.

In the thread about the wedding of Jesus in Cana, I present many evidences that Jesus was the same as the bridegroom. Can you show me one to disprove that assertion of mine?The only point I have is that the text does not say Jesus is the bridegroom. In fact, it seems to distinguish Jesus from the bridegroom.

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 02:34 PM
Genesis 1:28 is a command to mankind, not individual men. Genesis 2:24 is an observation/teaching/doctrine, not a command.

Can we look at the Ten Commandments to see if you are correct?

I have no problem with Nicodemus addressing Jesus as a Rabbi. Nicodemus was not the only one (to address Jesus as a Rabbi).

Did you bring up Replacement Theology in order to say this?

Jesus being a Jew and a Rabbi does not make Him the bridegroom.
The only point I have is that the text does not say Jesus is the bridegroom. In fact, it seems to distinguish Jesus from the bridegroom.

That's what I asked. Would you please show me the reasons to prove that Jesus was not the bridegroom?

Jacob
July 3rd, 2015, 03:04 PM
That's what I asked. Would you please show me the reasons to prove that Jesus was not the bridegroom?I showed you my reasons. Here they are again:
John 2:9-10 NASB - 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 03:10 PM
I showed you my reasons. Here they are again:

It does not say at all that Jesus was not the bridegroom.

Jacob
July 3rd, 2015, 03:10 PM
It does not say at all that Jesus was not the bridegroom.It says the headwaiter called the bridegroom.

Ben Masada
July 3rd, 2015, 03:24 PM
It says the headwaiter called the bridegroom.

Yes, but it does not say that the bridegroom was NOT Jesus. How can this be so hard to grasp?

Jacob
July 3rd, 2015, 03:25 PM
Yes, but it does not say that the bridegroom was NOT Jesus. How can this be so hard to grasp?Did you read these verses in context? You might think that if you only read the verses I presented.

False Prophet
July 3rd, 2015, 03:50 PM
Scoffers will come in the last days, "Saying, where is the day of his coming?" They do not keep in mind that in the days of Noah, that God saved eight from the days when the earth was flooded and all others perished.

Ben Masada
July 10th, 2015, 09:40 PM
Did you read these verses in context? You might think that if you only read the verses I presented.

Yes, I always read the verses in context, before I present my reply. Do you have any thing else in mind?

Ben Masada
July 10th, 2015, 09:49 PM
Scoffers will come in the last days, "Saying, where is the day of his coming?" They do not keep in mind that in the days of Noah, that God saved eight from the days when the earth was flooded and all others perished.

That's the Christian excuse for the failure of the NT. If something is not happening according to what it is written and someone reminds them of it, he or she is a scoffer.

The truth is that Jesus was a Jew and according to his Faith which was Judaism the dead will never return.(Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; and Job 10:21) Now, if a Jew reminds them of it, he is a scoffer! I have heard that before.

Interplanner
July 11th, 2015, 08:11 AM
Failure of the NT? What do you mean?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111542

Jacob
July 11th, 2015, 10:51 PM
Yes, I always read the verses in context, before I present my reply. Do you have any thing else in mind?I urge you to reconsider.

Aimiel
July 12th, 2015, 07:04 AM
That's the Christian excuse for the failure of the NT. If something is not happening according to what it is written and someone reminds them of it, he or she is a scoffer.

The truth is that Jesus was a Jew and according to his Faith which was Judaism the dead will never return.(Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; and Job 10:21) Now, if a Jew reminds them of it, he is a scoffer! I have heard that before.

Elijah raised the dead. Elisha too.

Interplanner
July 12th, 2015, 07:27 AM
BenM,
working back through this stack:

re: understanding. Paul's point in his faith vs. sight contrast was that those who are dialed into what happened in Christ (see his explanation in vs 16+) are living by faith. It is not a contradiction or discarding of reality. As for those who live by sight, he means those who are veiled from realizing what happened in Christ. He himself saw some things Christ did first hand, however, he was later shown that a few details like that were not the big picture or message God was expressing in Christ.

re the appearances of Christ
The verb in Acts 1:3 "appeared" is the Greek's present continuous. Ie, it is not about one showing. It is best translated: he kept on appearing to them... which is probably why he says he gave many convincing proofs. btw, Luke was writing down Paul's teachings and understandings of the early days.

re the OP
I have thought you might on the right track for another reason, which is Eph 3:21, a doxology which includes the phrase 'throughout all generations.' He may have meant to bridge to the new heaves and new earth, I'm not sure.

One other reason you may be correct is that there is quite a distinction in the NT between some acts of conclusive judgement upon Israel in the 1st century and on the other hand, the judgement of the rest of the world. The original declarations are that the latter would happen right after the former (Mt 24:29). But a delay was allowed in the following verses, and 2 Pet 3 explains and defends that delay. I think the difference between what Luke records in 21:25+ and Mt in 24:29 is nearly irresolveable; if Luke (Paul) was so convinced that the end of the world was right after the destruction of Jerusalem, it sure doesn't show. Paul continued to see things that way in the earliest letters: in Thessalonian letters the wrath is complete and the coming is very soon.

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 10:14 AM
Failure of the NT? What do you mean?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111542

I mean by the failure to teach the Truth according to the Law and the Prophets as stated by Isa. 8:20. Jesus did if you read Mat. 5:17-19

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 10:17 AM
I urge you to reconsider.

To reconsider what, reading the verses in context or stop doing so?

Jacob
July 12th, 2015, 10:18 AM
To reconsider what, reading the verses in context or stop doing so?You are making claims about the text which I do not believe are evident in the text.

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 10:19 AM
Elijah raised the dead. Elisha too.

No, both of them applied resuscitation, not resurrection. They were Jewish.

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 10:26 AM
BenM,
working back through this stack:

re: understanding. Paul's point in his faith vs. sight contrast was that those who are dialed into what happened in Christ (see his explanation in vs 16+) are living by faith. It is not a contradiction or discarding of reality. As for those who live by sight, he means those who are veiled from realizing what happened in Christ. He himself saw some things Christ did first hand, however, he was later shown that a few details like that were not the big picture or message God was expressing in Christ.

re the appearances of Christ
The verb in Acts 1:3 "appeared" is the Greek's present continuous. Ie, it is not about one showing. It is best translated: he kept on appearing to them... which is probably why he says he gave many convincing proofs. btw, Luke was writing down Paul's teachings and understandings of the early days.

re the OP
I have thought you might on the right track for another reason, which is Eph 3:21, a doxology which includes the phrase 'throughout all generations.' He may have meant to bridge to the new heaves and new earth, I'm not sure.

One other reason you may be correct is that there is quite a distinction in the NT between some acts of conclusive judgement upon Israel in the 1st century and on the other hand, the judgement of the rest of the world. The original declarations are that the latter would happen right after the former (Mt 24:29). But a delay was allowed in the following verses, and 2 Pet 3 explains and defends that delay. I think the difference between what Luke records in 21:25+ and Mt in 24:29 is nearly irresolveable; if Luke (Paul) was so convinced that the end of the world was right after the destruction of Jerusalem, it sure doesn't show. Paul continued to see things that way in the earliest letters: in Thessalonian letters the wrath is complete and the coming is very soon.

I am sorry Interplanner but I failed to see the point you have in mind with this post of yours above even after reading it twice. If you don't mind, I would like you shared with me what I have missed in a line or two.

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 10:29 AM
You are making claims about the text which I do not believe are evident in the text.

Pick up one for an example and tell me what you have in mind.

Jacob
July 12th, 2015, 10:37 AM
Pick up one for an example and tell me what you have in mind.Are we talking about the same thing?

Are you asking me to pick up a text? I am talking about the text of scripture you and I are referring to.

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 10:43 AM
Are we talking about the same thing?

Are you asking me to pick up a text? I am talking about the text of scripture you and I are referring to.

Never mind if we are talking about the same thing or not. Just show me what you mean to reconsider.

Jacob
July 12th, 2015, 10:52 AM
Never mind if we are talking about the same thing or not. Just show me what you mean to reconsider.To reconsider is to consider again either with new data (I mean here "evidences" though it is a different word) or the same as what you already have, that about which you have spoken or communicated different from another position. That is, consider the position I have shared with you. But more importantly, consider what the text says. That is, consider what the Biblical text says. We are not to consider what it does not say.

Ben Masada
July 12th, 2015, 11:03 AM
To reconsider is to consider again either with new data (I mean here "evidences" though it is a different word) or the same as what you already have, that about which you have spoken or communicated different from another position. That is, consider the position I have shared with you. But more importantly, consider what the text says. That is, consider what the Biblical text says. We are not to consider what it does not say.

Sorry but, I really have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply circling around verbal juggling about things I have no idea what you mean.

Jacob
July 12th, 2015, 11:04 AM
Sorry but, I really have no idea what you are talking about. You are simply circling around verbal juggling about things I have no idea what you mean.You said the Bible says Jesus was married. I said it does not say Jesus was married.

Interplanner
July 12th, 2015, 11:18 AM
1, when Paul says he lives by faith, it means about what happened in Christ. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting mens' sins against them, 2 Cor 5. By faith is not guessing, it is real content based on what occurred in Christ. See, for ex., Colossians 1.

when he says not by sight, he is not demeaning what is historical or objective or visual. He means ordinary human life outside of Christ, and he means what he grew up in in Judaism. In 2 Cor 5 he also says that he once knew Christ in a ordinary way, because he saw some of the events first hand. However, he did not "see" or know that God was in Christ, completing the Gospel.

2, on appearances.
You said there is a contradiction of 40 days vs 1 day in the two accounts. However, the Greek verb tense for "appeared" in Acts 1 is "past continuous" meaning, referring to several appearances.

I'll stop there with just these two points till we get caught up.

Aimiel
July 12th, 2015, 02:21 PM
No, both of them applied resuscitation, not resurrection. They were Jewish.

Hogwash. Elijah raised the dead boy and Elisha's bones did so too.

Ben Masada
July 13th, 2015, 08:33 AM
You said the Bible says Jesus was married. I said it does not say Jesus was married.

I said that Jesus was married from the many evidences in the NT that attest to that fact and, above all, the NT does not state that he was NOT married. You can't show a single evidence in the NT that Jesus was NOT married. I can show you many that he was married. Your testimony is based on the gospel of Paul; mine is based on the life of Jesus as a Jew who came to fulfill the Jewish laws down to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Ben Masada
July 13th, 2015, 08:47 AM
1, when Paul says he lives by faith, it means about what happened in Christ. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting mens' sins against them, 2 Cor 5. By faith is not guessing, it is real content based on what occurred in Christ. See, for ex., Colossians 1.

when he says not by sight, he is not demeaning what is historical or objective or visual. He means ordinary human life outside of Christ, and he means what he grew up in in Judaism. In 2 Cor 5 he also says that he once knew Christ in a ordinary way, because he saw some of the events first hand. However, he did not "see" or know that God was in Christ, completing the Gospel.

2, on appearances.
You said there is a contradiction of 40 days vs 1 day in the two accounts. However, the Greek verb tense for "appeared" in Acts 1 is "past continuous" meaning, referring to several appearances.

I'll stop there with just these two points till we get caught up.

Did God in "Christ" succeed to reconcile the world with Himself? No. Could it have been that God was not powerful enough to do so? No, but only to mean that Paul was wrong.

Now, from what you say above that Paul did not see or know that God was in "Christ" completing the gospel, you have simply contradicted yourself from Paul's statement above that God was in "Christ" reconciling the world with Himself.

Jesus had nothing to do with the Greeks. The Hellenist was not Jesus but Paul. Hence the whole NT is crowded with Hellenist teaching. Jesus lived according to the Tanach aka Torah, not the NT that did not exist at his time and that btw, he never even dreamed it would ever rise.

You have already been caught up in contradictions.

Ben Masada
July 13th, 2015, 09:03 AM
Hogwash. Elijah raised the dead boy and Elisha's bones did so too.

Only according to Christians who can't think metaphorically. If you have any idea of what resuscitation is, why don't you review the case of Elijah and that boy to see the difference between resuscitation and resurrection? Do you have any idea about what embellishment is? It was very common thing among the scribes in Israel to embellish the events among kings and prophets so as to distinguish them from less important people. BTW, this is very common throughout the world in general. Jews would not report something not Jewish as having literally happened. Bodily resurrection is not Jewish. You can find it in the NT because the book is not Jewish.

Jacob
July 13th, 2015, 10:07 AM
I said that Jesus was married from the many evidences in the NT that attest to that fact and, above all, the NT does not state that he was NOT married. You can't show a single evidence in the NT that Jesus was NOT married. I can show you many that he was married. Your testimony is based on the gospel of Paul; mine is based on the life of Jesus as a Jew who came to fulfill the Jewish laws down to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19)The point is not to find a verse that says He was not married, but that in the absence of any verse that says He was married we cannot then say He was married.

Ben Masada
July 13th, 2015, 10:16 AM
The point is not to find a verse that says He was not married, but that in the absence of any verse that says He was married we cannot then say He was married.

Evidences are what one needs to come to a logical conclusion. That's how scientists work.

Jacob
July 13th, 2015, 10:18 AM
Evidences are what one needs to come to a logical conclusion. That's how scientists work.If you are investigating the Bible to see if Jesus was married you can know that the Bible does not say Jesus was married.

WonderfulLordJesus
July 13th, 2015, 10:22 AM
2 Peter 3

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 03:41 AM
If you are investigating the Bible to see if Jesus was married you can know that the Bible does not say Jesus was married.

Does it say that he was NOT married? Show me. Do evidences point to the fact that he was NOT married? Show me. Thank you.

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 03:47 AM
2 Peter 3

1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Nothing Jewish about this text above. Since Peter was Jewish, he did not write it. The language is too Pauline to doubt that he was the writer.

Jacob
July 15th, 2015, 08:27 AM
Does it say that he was NOT married? Show me. Do evidences point to the fact that he was NOT married? Show me. Thank you.Again, there is no proof that He was married. There are indications that He was not married.

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 09:34 AM
Again, there is no proof that He was married. There are indications that He was not married.

That's exactly what I need. Why should you take so long to comply? Show me the indications that Jesus was NOT married.

jzeidler
July 15th, 2015, 09:45 AM
If Jesus was married why didn't Paul or any of the other apostles use his marriage as an analogy when they were talking about marriage?

Jacob
July 15th, 2015, 09:49 AM
That's exactly what I need. Why should you take so long to comply? Show me the indications that Jesus was NOT married.

Where is the burden of proof? You want me to prove Jesus was not married, whereas if He were you would be proving He was. But your evidence doesn't prove He was. In fact it in no way even implies that this was the case.

Was it true that Jesus was married? Jesus was a Jew, yes. But that does not mean He was married. Not all Jews are married, just as not all people are married.

If the Bible said Jesus was married or Jesus was not married, that would be the end of it. But since it does not we cannot prove by any logic or reason, based on the text of scripture, that He was.

And the scriptures are the definitive source on the life of Jesus.

Interplanner
July 15th, 2015, 09:50 AM
More to the point, why didn't Paul mention this in the paragraph about whether to 'take a long a believing wife' and say something like 'like Christ himself did?'
I Cor 9:5

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 09:55 AM
If Jesus was married why didn't Paul or any of the other apostles use his marriage as an analogy when they were talking about marriage?

Paul did not touch the subject of Jesus having been married because he didn't want to be charged with not giving himself a good example as a follower of Jesus. He knew he couldn't for being a different kind of man. Then, a Jew did not have to be mentioned as a married Jew because rather the unusual would be for a Jew not to be married.

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 09:59 AM
More to the point, why didn't Paul mention this in the paragraph about whether to 'take a long a believing wife' and say something like 'like Christ himself did?'
I Cor 9:5

Because he would be liable to criticism for making of himself an exception to the rule. He preferred to live with Barnabas another Hellenistic bachelor. (Acts 11:25,26)

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 10:04 AM
Where is the burden of proof? You want me to prove Jesus was not married, whereas if He were you would be proving He was. But your evidence doesn't prove He was. In fact it in no way even implies that this was the case.

Was it true that Jesus was married? Jesus was a Jew, yes. But that does not mean He was married. Not all Jews are married, just as not all people are married.

If the Bible said Jesus was married or Jesus was not married, that would be the end of it. But since it does not we cannot prove by any logic or reason, based on the text of scripture, that He was.

And the scriptures are the definitive source on the life of Jesus.

The problem here is not with the burden of proof. If you read my post about the wedding of Jesus in Cana of Galilee, I have given enough evidences that Jesus was a married man. You insist that he was NOT married. I am not asking for proof but for an evidential statement to that effect that he was NOT married.

Jacob
July 15th, 2015, 10:14 AM
The problem here is not with the burden of proof. If you read my post about the wedding of Jesus in Cana of Galilee, I have given enough evidences that Jesus was a married man. You insist that he was NOT married. I am not asking for proof but for an evidential statement to that effect that he was NOT married.

Are you saying by your logic that all Jewish men are married?

Again, the difference between you and me is that you are trying to prove that Jesus was married while I am saying I have no proof that He was.

If we are both to prove opposite things, we cannot both be correct. It may be that neither of us can prove it. When you presented your evidence, it did not prove what you said it proves.

I believe every indication is that He was not married. I would either want to prove He was single or not married. But if I cannot prove it that doesn't mean that you can prove what you want to prove.

Ben Masada
July 15th, 2015, 12:32 PM
Are you saying by your logic that all Jewish men are married?

Again, the difference between you and me is that you are trying to prove that Jesus was married while I am saying I have no proof that He was.

If we are both to prove opposite things, we cannot both be correct. It may be that neither of us can prove it. When you presented your evidence, it did not prove what you said it proves.

I believe every indication is that He was not married. I would either want to prove He was single or not married. But if I cannot prove it that doesn't mean that you can prove what you want to prove.

Okay, this issue is smelling bad already. Let's call the quits and each one of us stays with his own view: You believe that Jesus was not married and I believe that he was.

According to you, Jesus would hang around with 12 guys, calling one of them his beloved. Do you find that preferable than to think of him married with a woman? I would feel embarrassed to think of him as a Jew. But that's okay. It is your choice.

Jacob
July 15th, 2015, 01:33 PM
Okay, this issue is smelling bad already. Let's call the quits and each one of us stays with his own view: You believe that Jesus was not married and I believe that he was.

According to you, Jesus would hang around with 12 guys, calling one of them his beloved. Do you find that preferable than to think of him married with a woman? I would feel embarrassed to think of him as a Jew. But that's okay. It is your choice.

You are just blinded by your view. The scriptures are true. I hope you have good friends. Jesus had more than that with a ministry.

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 10:27 AM
You are just blinded by your view. The scriptures are true. I hope you have good friends. Jesus had more than that with a ministry.

"The scriptures are true!" What scriptures are you talking about? If it is the NT, even Jesus never dreamed such scriptures would ever rise. Jesus' Scriptures was the Tanach. What is true about the NT if I ask from the side of Jesus who was a Jew?

Jacob
July 16th, 2015, 10:33 AM
"The scriptures are true!" What scriptures are you talking about? If it is the NT, even Jesus never dreamed such scriptures would ever rise. Jesus' Scriptures was the Tanach. What is true about the NT if I ask from the side of Jesus who was a Jew?All scripture, the entire Bible, is true. But you were presenting about the miracle Jesus performed.

Omniskeptical
July 16th, 2015, 12:00 PM
Jesus will never return.

A poster once told me that, in his opinion, the Second Coming of Jesus would happen only when--through entirely natural causes--our planet be on the verge of destruction, and not before.

Well, I said, I am glad to hear that because, in that case, Jesus will never come because, soon after the Flood the Lord promised Noah that He would never again allow another universal destruction to destroy Mankind as long as the natural laws function properly. (Gen. 8:21,22)

Jeremiah read that text and said that as long as the natural laws function properly Israel will never cease as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36)

Jesus must have read those two texts; the one of Genesis and that of Jeremiah and completed the info that salvation comes from the Jews as he mean universal catastrophe. (John 4:22)

Abraham went further and said that as long as there is a minyan of ten righteous, universal destruction would not happen. (Gen. 18:32) After all this, do you still think Jesus will need to come back? Hardly!God will destroy the world, if there is another holocaust. The next holocaust will be nuclear; and Islam will be its victim.

Omniskeptical
July 16th, 2015, 12:02 PM
That's exactly what I need. Why should you take so long to comply? Show me the indications that Jesus was NOT married.Marriage isn't ideal for all persons. There are some things which aren't needed when saving Israel.

Omniskeptical
July 16th, 2015, 12:08 PM
Because he would be liable to criticism for making of himself an exception to the rule. He preferred to live with Barnabas another Hellenistic bachelor. (Acts 11:25,26)I don't know if Barnabas and Paul had women to put it bluntly as literal as the bible, but Paul seems to have adopted Timothy. Anti-family teaching comes from Catholic Church a lot. They pretend the priests aren't married in a special way, and that losing virginity is a sexual activity. [First off,] guys don't have it to lose anyway, while women don't feel anything, til they lose it.

aikido7
July 16th, 2015, 01:45 PM
When Jesus did not return as promised after he was crucified (in the sky with angels and trumpets above the Mount of Olives) the date of his return got moved ahead further and further.

History is full of those Christians who earnestly predicted and believed that Jesus would return soon.

By the way, if Jesus does return shortly after my comment is written, then do not believe what I am saying...

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 02:33 AM
All scripture, the entire Bible, is true. But you were presenting about the miracle Jesus performed.

Not even a quote but, I am sure you are referring to Paul. Of course, he had to include his own scripture to equate in holiness with the Tanach; even to replace the Tanach if you read Heb. 8:13. Sorry to rain on your parade because Jesus would have never acknowledged the NT as true if it existed at his time.

Interplanner
July 17th, 2015, 02:37 AM
In Mk 13 Jesus told the parable of the attentive servants; the Master, it says, might return at any of 4 possible times.

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 02:49 AM
God will destroy the world, if there is another holocaust. The next holocaust will be nuclear; and Islam will be its victim.

I am glad you understand Gen. 8:21,22; Jer. 31:35-37; and John 4:22 as all three texts are somehow connected to each other in that chain of sequence. Yea, I also believe that if a nuclear holocaust happens and all Jews are destroyed throughout the world down to less than a Minyan of Ten, the whole world will have to go to the birds. That's why the Lord approves the Diaspora as necessary for the existence of Mankind. His Word cannot fail.

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 03:00 AM
Marriage isn't ideal for all persons. There are some things which aren't needed when saving Israel.

I am aware of that and I totally agree with you, but for a Jew in the First Century, save exceptions, it was a must. Young Jews would dream the whole of their youth for the time to take a wife and father children. Young ladies on the other hand would dream their whole life in preparation to be taken and be the fulfillment of a young man's commandment to take a wife and to cleave to her by becoming with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 03:35 AM
I don't know if Barnabas and Paul had women to put it bluntly as literal as the bible, but Paul seems to have adopted Timothy. Anti-family teaching comes from Catholic Church a lot. They pretend the priests aren't married in a special way, and that losing virginity is a sexual activity. One guys don't have it to lose anyway, while women don't feel anything, til they lose it.

No, Paul and Barnabas were not married. Both were Hellenists from Greek cities. Paul from Tarsus in the Cilicia and Barnabas from Cyprus. If you read I Cor. 7:1, Paul used to teach that it was good for a man not to touch a woman; and in verse 7 he said that he wish that all men were like him free of a wife. Therefore, to the unmarried and widower, his advice was that they abode as he was, without a wife. (v.8) Then in verse 27 he asked, "Are you free from a wife, seek not a wife."

Now, imagine, Paul and Barnabas together, teaching such an anti-marriage doctrine, what could happen? Exactly what happened in Antioch if you read Acts 13:50. The Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women and the chief men of the city and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas and expelled them both out of their town. I couldn't blame them. Mothers preparing their daughters to be married and these two bachelors forbidding men to marry them! What could be expected for a reaction?

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 03:47 AM
When Jesus did not return as promised after he was crucified (in the sky with angels and trumpets above the Mount of Olives) the date of his return got moved ahead further and further.

History is full of those Christians who earnestly predicted and believed that Jesus would return soon.

By the way, if Jesus does return shortly after my comment is written, then do not believe what I am saying...

Aikido, the return of Jesus was not a thing of Christians talking about and the date for some reason moving ahead further and further. The guy who wrote the gospel attributed to John reported Jesus himself implying that Jesus would return before the generation of his apostles was over. (John 21:22) Who or what in your opinion has been causing the date to move further and further? I hate to rain on your parade but Jesus will never return. I have two witnesses to prove my rain on your parade: The Tanach and time that is running and noting is happening. Two thousand years is not the same as two thousand days or months.

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 04:00 AM
In Mk 13 Jesus told the parable of the attentive servants; the Master, it says, might return at any of 4 possible times.

"Might return!" Might return is not good enough to rekindle the candle of hope for his return. No wonder some Christians are loosing it altogether. The Scriptures of Jesus says in several places that he will never return but faith seems to be the last thing to go. What could be more sweet than illusion?

MichaelCadry
July 17th, 2015, 05:07 AM
Dear Ben Masada,

Don't lose hope. Jesus will return quite soon, after all of our waiting. Two thousand years was a big part of it. That much time had to occur first. After Jesus returns, the devil will be locked up for 1,000 years. After 1,000 years the devil will be let loose again on a new mankind made up of those who didn't learn their lessons while they were alive during this generation. It's all quite lengthy and intricate to explain. Hopefully, this will give you hope. It is VERY Soon!!! You just have to look around and see the signs. There is a fourth blood red moon to happen this year on another Jewish holy day. Have faith.

God Be With You,

Michael

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 05:59 AM
Dear Ben Masada,

Don't lose hope. Jesus will return quite soon, after all of our waiting. Two thousand years was a big part of it. That much time had to occur first. After Jesus returns, the devil will be locked up for 1,000 years. After 1,000 years the devil will be let loose again on a new mankind made up of those who didn't learn their lessons while they were alive during this generation. It's all quite lengthy and intricate to explain. Hopefully, this will give you hope. It is VERY Soon!!! You just have to look around and see the signs. There is a fourth blood red moon to happen this year on another Jewish holy day. Have faith.

God Be With You,

Michael

Michael, hold on! What are you talking about! I am not the one desperate here that Jesus is taking so long to return. The opposite is rather true that, according to the Faith of Jesus which was Judaism, Jesus can never return for it is written that once dead no one can ever return. (Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23; Job 10:21) I am rather serving as a consolation to those whose faith is failing them.

Jacob
July 17th, 2015, 09:48 AM
Not even a quote but, I am sure you are referring to Paul. Of course, he had to include his own scripture to equate in holiness with the Tanach; even to replace the Tanach if you read Heb. 8:13. Sorry to rain on your parade because Jesus would have never acknowledged the NT as true if it existed at his time.Why do you think the Tanach is the old covenant?

The Bible is the word of God, all 66 books (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111715)

We already looked at the passage about Jesus and the miracle of turning water to wine.

The scriptures are referred to in the New Testament writings. For example, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB.

The Bible is the word of God. This first involves the TaNaKh meaning the Hebrew Bible. These writings are the holy scriptures or sacred scriptures.

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 07:10 AM
1 - Why do you think the Tanach is the old covenant?

2 - The Bible is the word of God, all 66 books.

3 - We already looked at the passage about Jesus and the miracle of turning water to wine.

4 - The scriptures are referred to in the New Testament writings. For example, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB.

1 - Because the Prophets speak of a New Covenant made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Jer. 31:31) But the only thing new is on the method of observance. The agenda remains the same as in the Old Covenant.

2 - The Bible as the Word of God is composed of 49 books aka all the books of the Tanach. If Jesus, for some obvious reasons could not consider the NT as the Word of God, so we cannot count it as the Word of God.

3 - That's according to John. According to the other gospel writers Jesus was in the desert being tempted to turn stone into bread and not water into wine.

4 - The scriptures according to the gospel of Paul. I am talking about the gospel of Jesus which was Judaism.

Interplanner
July 18th, 2015, 07:14 AM
If the gospel of Jesus was Judaism, what did the leaders take his life for?

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 10:49 AM
If the gospel of Jesus was Judaism, what did the leaders take his life for?

For the life of a Rabbi and Master. Even Pharisees would address to him as Rabbi and master. (John 3:1,2) What did you expect them to make of him, a son of God? That's not how Jews operate. Only Paul and the likes of him went for the Greek idolatry to make of him the son of God. (Acts 9:20) The problem is that Jesus died too young. He did not have the chance even to become a senior Rabbi with a Yeshiva just like the other Pharisees.

Interplanner
July 19th, 2015, 07:37 AM
BenM,
my question was not 'what did they think of his career?' It was: why did they kill him if not differences from majority Judaism?

RevTestament
July 19th, 2015, 11:02 AM
God will destroy the world, if there is another holocaust. The next holocaust will be nuclear; and Islam will be its victim.

Nuclear holocaust would destroy the world and prophecy would be left unfulfilled, hence is a false prophecy....

In the other news dept, I recall a thread claiming you had died, which seems to have disappeared. What was the deal with that?

serpentdove
July 19th, 2015, 12:32 PM
...Even Pharisees would address to him as Rabbi and master. (John 3:1,2) What did you expect them to make of him, a son of God? That's not how Jews operate. Only Paul and the likes of him went for the Greek idolatry to make of him the son of God. (Acts 9:20) The problem is that Jesus died too young. He did not have the chance even to become a senior Rabbi with a Yeshiva just like the other Pharisees.

The apostle Paul came to understand that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Ac 9:4–9).

See:

The Canon Test: A Study in the Divine authority of the Work of God (http://www.harvestdenver.org/sermons/the-canon-test-a-study-in-the-divine-authority-of-the-word-of-god-71215)by Eric Ludy

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 02:41 AM
BenM,
my question was not 'what did they think of his career?' It was: why did they kill him if not differences from majority Judaism?

Interplanner, the Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus was killed by the Romans and, it seems obvious that you prefer the same lie used by the Fathers of the Church in the 4th Century to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews because Emperor Constantine wanted to make of Christianity the official religion of Rome and that stain seemed to be on the way. I wonder why Anti-Semitism has to be so sweet. Because of this lie by the Church, even up to the millions of Jews have been murdered by the Church through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least, the Holocaust. No wonder, talking to a crowd of Jews, from the Sermon of the Mount Jesus blessed them with the words, "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake." (Mat. 5:11) See what you are contributing for the sake of Jesus? I am sure you could do much better than that!

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 02:47 AM
Nuclear holocaust would destroy the world and prophecy would be left unfulfilled, hence is a false prophecy....

In the other news dept, I recall a thread claiming you had died, which seems to have disappeared. What was the deal with that?

Well, I guess we ought to wait and see this nuclear holocaust to prove that the prophecy was false.

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 02:55 AM
The apostle Paul came to understand that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Ac 9:4–9).

See:

The Canon Test: A Study in the Divine authority of the Work of God (http://www.harvestdenver.org/sermons/the-canon-test-a-study-in-the-divine-authority-of-the-word-of-god-71215)by Eric Ludy

Really! What did Jesus do for Paul to understand that he was the Messiah? Care to elaborate? Because what I have is that Paul revealed the secret to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah according to the gospel he, Paul, was preaching. (II Tim. 2:8) It means that there must have been another gospel at the time in which this item of Paul's gospel was not preached by.

Interplanner
July 20th, 2015, 06:41 AM
Interplanner, the Jews did not kill Jesus. Jesus was killed by the Romans and, it seems obvious that you prefer the same lie used by the Fathers of the Church in the 4th Century to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews because Emperor Constantine wanted to make of Christianity the official religion of Rome and that stain seemed to be on the way. I wonder why Anti-Semitism has to be so sweet. Because of this lie by the Church, even up to the millions of Jews have been murdered by the Church through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and last but not least, the Holocaust. No wonder, talking to a crowd of Jews, from the Sermon of the Mount Jesus blessed them with the words, "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake." (Mat. 5:11) See what you are contributing for the sake of Jesus? I am sure you could do much better than that!


Caiaphas thought that it would be better if he died than for the nation to perish; Caiaphas was trying to save the relationship with Rome, Jn 12 and 18.

In the divine scheme and the message of the Gospel, it does not matter which tribe or ethnos put him to death, but yes, in the details of that week, the leaders sought it, and the crowd at the Praetorium wanted it. Judas also wanted money, so he had a bit piece. Pilate turned the question to the crowd rather than answer it himself.

The apostles taught that the people of Israel wanted it, but that God knew they acted in ignorance. This underscored that all mankind has sinned--has participated in the death of Christ--but also that all mankind can be blessed by it, because it was an atoning sacrifice for all sin.

At first it seems impossible, but it was a standard teaching of the apostles that 'if the rulers of this age had understood God's wisdom, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' I Cor 2:8.

You're quite right about the crass use of this in the medieval era. It piled insult onto injury. By injury, I mean that since most of Israel did not join in the Christian mission in that first generation, the zealots influenced enough people to try to succeed in a freedom fight against Rome, an abject failure. As far as I know, Luke-Acts was written (partly) to show that Paul had nothing to do with the zealots. Luke traveled with Paul after a certain point in his first trip, and was his chronicler, and Theophilus (mentioned in the intro to each document) was going to represent Paul in hearings in Rome.

I have studied this topic at the master's level at Regent College, Canada, and spent a year or term translating THE JEWISH WAR by Josephus.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 02:36 AM
[quote]Caiaphas thought that it would be better if he died than for the nation to perish; Caiaphas was trying to save the relationship with Rome, Jn 12 and 18.

Would you please provide me with the quote that Caiaphas said what you claim above? I mean chapter and verse and not two chapters.


In the divine scheme and the message of the Gospel, it does not matter which tribe or ethnos put him to death, but yes, in the details of that week, the leaders sought it, and the crowd at the Praetorium wanted it. Judas also wanted money, so he had a bit piece. Pilate turned the question to the crowd rather than answer it himself.

That's not a description of Pilate. According to Josephus, Pilate did not behave that way. It did not mean to Pilate how many Jews he had to crucify, since as many they were it would satisfy him better.


The apostles taught that the people of Israel wanted it, but that God knew they acted in ignorance. This underscored that all mankind has sinned--has participated in the death of Christ--but also that all mankind can be blessed by it, because it was an atoning sacrifice for all sin.

How about the Prophets whose words Jesus came to confirm down to the letter? (Mat. 5:17-19) They said that no one could die to atone for the sins of any one else. Don't you believe the Prophets? (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)


At first it seems impossible, but it was a standard teaching of the apostles that 'if the rulers of this age had understood God's wisdom, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.' I Cor 2:8.

Paul was a liar and Jesus' words in Mat. 5:11 did apply to him for falsely accusing the Jews with the death of Jesus.


You're quite right about the crass use of this in the medieval era. It piled insult onto injury. By injury, I mean that since most of Israel did not join in the Christian mission in that first generation, the zealots influenced enough people to try to succeed in a freedom fight against Rome, an abject failure.

And you are making things worse by reminding the zealots of today that the Jews did kill Jesus which is not true at all. (Mat. 5:11)


As far as I know, Luke-Acts was written (partly) to show that Paul had nothing to do with the zealots. Luke traveled with Paul after a certain point in his first trip, and was his chronicler, and Theophilus (mentioned in the intro to each document) was going to represent Paul in hearings in Rome.

Which never happened as Caesar gave no chance to Paul to present his defense. After two years in Rome he died in his own house arrest.


I have studied this topic at the master's level at Regent College, Canada, and spent a year or term translating THE JEWISH WAR by Josephus.

Oh! So you know that Pilate would never consult the Jews regarding the crucifixion of one of them. But, as you know that not every one reads Josephus, you threw in your coin in favor of Pilate. Not fair!

Omniskeptical
July 21st, 2015, 07:27 AM
Now, imagine, Paul and Barnabas together, teaching such an anti-marriage doctrine, what could happen? Exactly what happened in Antioch if you read Acts 13:50. The Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women and the chief men of the city and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas and expelled them both out of their town. I couldn't blame them. Mothers preparing their daughters to be married and these two bachelors forbidding men to marry them! What could be expected for a reaction?They were discouraging people from having families, because it was the last days of the nation of Israel. You have a women, but she has a 1 month old son too, and you want to "raptured." I would highly advise against such a scenario, though it did happen sometimes.

Omniskeptical
July 21st, 2015, 07:29 AM
Would you please provide me with the quote that Caiaphas said what you claim above? I mean chapter and verse and not two chapters.



That's not a description of Pilate. According to Josephus, Pilate did not behave that way. It did not mean to Pilate how many Jews he had to crucify, since as many they were it would satisfy him better.



How about the Prophets whose words Jesus came to confirm down to the letter? (Mat. 5:17-19) They said that no one could die to atone for the sins of any one else. Don't you believe the Prophets? (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)



Paul was a liar and Jesus' words in Mat. 5:11 did apply to him for falsely accusing the Jews with the death of Jesus.



And you are making things worse by reminding the zealots of today that the Jews did kill Jesus which is not true at all. (Mat. 5:11)



Which never happened as Caesar gave no chance to Paul to present his defense. After two years in Rome he died in his own house arrest.



Oh! So you know that Pilate would never consult the Jews regarding the crucifixion of one of them. But, as you know that not every one reads Josephus, you threw in your coin in favor of Pilate. Not fair!
Josephus is wrong on many, and the behavior of Pilate given by him is a fantastic tall untale. The gospels have him weeding out the false prophets, and those with the Messiah complex. And it is state cleary in Acts that the apostle Paul did not die at the hand of Caesar. If Paul died in Rome, then Jonah died at Nineveh.

OCTOBER23
July 21st, 2015, 07:57 AM
Is a TSUNAMI BEFORE END OF SEPTEMBER 2015

Wait and see .

7 Year Tribulation Sept 23, 2017 - Jesus returns circa Sept. 2024

Interplanner
July 21st, 2015, 08:59 AM
The lines from Caiahphas are Jn 11, sorry. Vs 49+. Then 18:13+. I mention whole chapters at a time for the sake of greatest context.

Yes, Pilate did crucify many, but on this one he had misgivings. Wives' dreams/visions go a long ways.

You must think, then, that the mob scene is artificial. How could you reconstruct that?

Yes the prophets said that in cases where people were in denial of their own. By "owning" and realizing their inability to pay, the Gospel of Christ's righteousness is more powerful. As you may know, Abraham was credited someone else's righteousness, too.

Paul in I Cor referred to the leaders and rulers. But in his theology, it is 'an act of God' anyway: he laid down his own life; knew it would happen. That's why the theological explanation never sounds like the crass medieval blame formula. And anyway, those medieval people will have to explain why they didn't see the destruction of Jerusalem as 'enough, already.' There is no warrant for ongoing harm after that event.

What Paul did want was to have as many of his countrymen in the mission of the Gospel as possible; Rom 11, Acts 26:29. My conclusion about the Jewish War is that it was inevitable once the appeal of the apostles to their people to join the mission was refused. The issue is not the crucifixion because God was making that happen anyway. The issue is the refusal to join the mission. The zealots then aggravated everything with Rome, while the apostles and others in the mission spread the Gospel from Spain to India in one generation. Obviously, two opposing views, two infinitely different results.

Caesar's not giving Paul a chance to speak does not change why the material was chronicled and compiled. No fair.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 12:53 PM
They were discouraging people from having families, because it was the last days of the nation of Israel. You have a women, but she has a 1 month old son too, and you want to "raptured." I would highly advise against such a scenario, though it did happen sometimes.

Scatological reasons to forbid marriages is just too hard to buy, especially in the Israel of that time.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 01:06 PM
Josephus is wrong on many, and the behavior of Pilate given by him is a fantastic tall untale. The gospels have him weeding out the false prophets, and those with the Messiah complex. And it is state cleary in Acts that the apostle Paul did not die at the hand of Caesar. If Paul died in Rome, then Jonah died at Nineveh.

I've failed to see any correlation between Paul and Jonah although none is mentioned to have died in Rome and the other in Nineveh.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 01:13 PM
Is a TSUNAMI BEFORE END OF SEPTEMBER 2015

Wait and see .

7 Year Tribulation Sept 23, 2017 - Jesus returns circa Sept. 2024

The seven-year tribulation of the 70 week/years of Daniel 9:24-27 happened during the Maccabean wars with the Greeks of King Antiochus IV when the abomination of desolation was settled in the Temple and the sacrifices discontinued for 3.5 years until the purification of the Temple aka Hanukah.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 01:19 PM
The lines from Caiahphas are Jn 11, sorry. Vs 49+. Then 18:13+. I mention whole chapters at a time for the sake of greatest context.

Yes, Pilate did crucify many, but on this one he had misgivings. Wives' dreams/visions go a long ways.

You must think, then, that the mob scene is artificial. How could you reconstruct that?

Yes the prophets said that in cases where people were in denial of their own. By "owning" and realizing their inability to pay, the Gospel of Christ's righteousness is more powerful. As you may know, Abraham was credited someone else's righteousness, too.

Paul in I Cor referred to the leaders and rulers. But in his theology, it is 'an act of God' anyway: he laid down his own life; knew it would happen. That's why the theological explanation never sounds like the crass medieval blame formula. And anyway, those medieval people will have to explain why they didn't see the destruction of Jerusalem as 'enough, already.' There is no warrant for ongoing harm after that event.

What Paul did want was to have as many of his countrymen in the mission of the Gospel as possible; Rom 11, Acts 26:29. My conclusion about the Jewish War is that it was inevitable once the appeal of the apostles to their people to join the mission was refused. The issue is not the crucifixion because God was making that happen anyway. The issue is the refusal to join the mission. The zealots then aggravated everything with Rome, while the apostles and others in the mission spread the Gospel from Spain to India in one generation. Obviously, two opposing views, two infinitely different results.

Caesar's not giving Paul a chance to speak does not change why the material was chronicled and compiled. No fair.

I had found the text. I did not return to you because I found the text to be excessively un-Jewish. The opposite was rather true that the Pharisees were more than one time involved on trying to save Jesus from being arrest. The first time is I am not mistaken was when Herod had sent his guards to arrest Jesus and a Pharisee undercover, blue the whistle by revealing the Herod's plot to Jesus, Jesus listened to the warning and escaped arrest. (Luke 13:31) The next time was at the entrance of Jerusalem when Jesus' disciple were acclaiming him king of the Jews and the Pharisees approached him and asked Jesus to stop his disciples or he would be arrested by the Imperial Cohorts of Pilate. This time it seems that Jesus was enjoying the parade and replied to the Pharisees that the stones would shout if his disciples stopped. (Luke 19:37-40) Immediately, Jesus entered the Roman agenda as a possible crucifixion for insurrection. It didn't take too long afterwards and Jesus was arrested and judged as a rebel and crucified on the political charge of being acclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province. Hence his verdict on the top of his cross read, INRI.

Bright Raven
July 21st, 2015, 01:27 PM
Acts 1:9-11 Modern English Version (MEV)

9 When He had spoken these things, while they looked, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him from their sight.

10 While they looked intently toward heaven as He ascended, suddenly two men stood by them in white garments.

11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why stand looking toward heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you to heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

aikido7
July 21st, 2015, 01:46 PM
Jesus returns to me every day of my life--and has been for some decades now.

Ben Masada
July 23rd, 2015, 01:26 AM
Acts 1:9-11 Modern English Version (MEV)

9 When He had spoken these things, while they looked, He was taken up. And a cloud received Him from their sight.

10 While they looked intently toward heaven as He ascended, suddenly two men stood by them in white garments.

11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why stand looking toward heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you to heaven, will come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

The allusion is still to be verified as Jesus has not returned yet. In the meantime, faith has to remain as the only evidence that such a hope will be fulfilled.

Ben Masada
July 23rd, 2015, 01:30 AM
Jesus returns to me every day of my life--and has been for some decades now.

But the promise of his return was not supposed to be individual and exoteric but literal and to the whole earth to know. Therefore, all you have is faith to corroborate your words.

Omniskeptical
July 27th, 2015, 06:19 AM
Scatological reasons to forbid marriages is just too hard to buy, especially in the Israel of that time.So you deny times were dire?

Omniskeptical
July 27th, 2015, 06:20 AM
I've failed to see any correlation between Paul and Jonah although none is mentioned to have died in Rome and the other in Nineveh.So you admit Paul didn't die in Rome according to the narrative?

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 06:25 AM
So you deny times were dire?

Perhaps but not to get married. Young men were helped in general by a lot as it was a mitzvah to help a young man to get married.

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 06:28 AM
So you admit Paul didn't die in Rome according to the narrative?

Probably he died in Rome but not crucified as many Christians claim. And neither did Peter.

Interplanner
July 27th, 2015, 07:50 AM
Ben,
could you explain more about 'young men...helped by a lot...as it was a mitzvah to help (them)...

Is a lot a drawing?

Isn't a mitzvah the coming of age ceremony of the 13th birthday?

rstrats
July 27th, 2015, 08:07 AM
aikido7,
re: "Jesus returns to me every day of my life..."

So do you know when He leaves for the day and then when He returns the next day?

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 08:12 AM
Ben,
could you explain more about 'young men...helped by a lot...as it was a mitzvah to help (them)...

Is a lot a drawing?

Isn't a mitzvah the coming of age ceremony of the 13th birthday?

"Helped by a lot" means only that, to help young men to get married was a kind of help which almost all Israel was willing to share with. And "Mitzvah" is the Hebrew term for an action of almost the size of a commandment.

Interplanner
July 27th, 2015, 09:30 AM
Same as bar mitzvah? What is the best translation then?

Ben Masada
July 27th, 2015, 09:41 AM
Same as bar mitzvah? What is the best translation then?

Bar Mitzvah means son of the commandment. That's when a Jewish boy becomes 13 and by that, becomes responsible for his own wrongdoings. For Jewish girls, that phase starts at age 12 when she is also called Bat Mitzvah.

Omniskeptical
July 28th, 2015, 10:33 AM
Probably he died in Rome but not crucified as many Christians claim. And neither did Peter.I highly doubt it. Paul was bragging that he wouldn't have the sting of death in the end. Only Enoch is known to have escaped it.

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 06:59 AM
I highly doubt it. Paul was bragging that he wouldn't have the sting of death in the end. Only Enoch is known to have escaped it.

The sting of death is to go through corruption of the flesh. The reference to death as being taken to heaven or to the Lord is only an embellishment in the chronicles of a king or a prophet as a result of the importance they enjoyed during life.

Ben Masada
July 29th, 2015, 07:01 AM
I highly doubt it. Paul was bragging that he wouldn't have the sting of death in the end. Only Enoch is known to have escaped it.

And Christians are so disingenuous as metaphorical language is concerned.

Jacob
March 30th, 2017, 08:38 PM
Jesus will never return.Shalom.

Why do you say this?

Shalom.

Jacob