PDA

View Full Version : The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved



Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 03:23 AM
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

daqq
July 16th, 2015, 03:55 AM
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

:rip:

oatmeal
July 16th, 2015, 03:57 AM
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

Could you teach scripture for about two and half minutes off the top of your head and use quotes from scripture for about half that time?

Without any notes? Just using your memory?

That would take some a great deal of past learning and knowledge to accomplish that.

Peter did that in Acts 2.

Where and when did Peter learn scripture like that?

Part of a child's education in those times was to learn scripture in the synagogues.

Unlearned and ignorant refers to not having gone to what we would refer to a "Bible college" or some such institution.

The Sanhedrin would generally be more highly educated than fishermen. Saul of Tarsus had that higher education being a pupil of Gameliel.

Acts 5:34

Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Acts 22:3

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Funny though for the most part, the disciples knew more scripture accurately and practically.

Stephen, Acts 6:8-10 is a clear example of that.

There is at least one person on this website who enjoys tooting his own horn regarding his Bible education, yet seems to have a great deal of trouble actually reading the actual words of scripture. He assumes he is right because of his education.

Jesus Christ loved all, but one was a noteworthy friend.

Peter did not necessarily love people more than other disciples, but Jesus Christ did encourage him to learn to love more by feeding those who would follow his leadership

No one is specifically named in reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved"

John is not mentioned in that context, there is a far better candidate for that distinction than John

nonanomanon
July 16th, 2015, 04:05 AM
God appointed John to measure heaven in order to produce the book of Revelation, in doing so, God did not allow his body to receive corruption. Its not so much that John ended up being in isolation, thats according to the account of a corrupt church. Their lives were simply terminated, and they stayed away from John or their euthanasia would of only continued. We have not yet reached this understanding on a large scale with the Antichrist, but considering mankind's current suicidal nature, what happened with the Apostle John will be repeated in some capacity with the Antichrist.

Jesus did not intend for Peter to measure heaven to some capacity. Jesus intended Peter to serve as a representation of a High Priest, not necessarily with the intent to serve as a high priest. Peter appears to be rejected as a High Priest when the "Roster Clucked Thrice", but that was simply a restatement of Christ's intention. A large euthanasia had taken place after the Apostle Peter was taken out of Jerusalem to be killed because he rejected the service of a High Priest, and especially outside of Jerusalem (as Jeremiah the Prophet intended the New Testament Church to be invested in Jerusalem, but Jerusalem was eventually abandoned, and rather quickly because of sin).

A considerable number of people were simply put down, euthanized, and in both accounts of the gospel in this respect, or as according to history, these accounts are simply ignored. ... ... ... ... Jesus rebuked Peter from going on to minister, when he answered Peter and said John is the one I love, acknowledging the conclusion of euthanasia as a result of sin that ended the Apostle Peter's call to faith.


John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
:rip:

Acts 4:13 says Peter and John were ignorant, that is according to the church of that day. Peter and John did not reveal the Body of Benjamin to Magdalene ... as the gospel records Peter dies without ministering any further at some point. Where as God drives the congregation from John in order to allow John to produce the book of revelation. For some period of time, the Gospel largely existed in bit sized portions, so the churches of that day were largely ignorant, and that lasted for quite a few years afterwards because of their sin.

daqq
July 16th, 2015, 05:01 AM
Originally Posted by daqq http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/bluesaint/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4385901#post4385901)
John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
:rip:
Acts 4:13 says Peter and John were ignorant, that is according to the church of that day. Peter and John did not reveal the Body of Benjamin to Magdalene ... as the gospel records Peter dies without ministering any further at some point. Where as God drives the congregation from John in order to allow John to produce the book of revelation. For some period of time, the Gospel largely existed in bit sized portions, so the churches of that day were largely ignorant, and that lasted for quite a few years afterwards because of their sin.

Hi there, and welcome to the forum. :)
The above portion appears to be addressed toward me so I will attempt a response. But first let me say that the RIP smiley was intended toward the IDEA in the OP and not the OP himself. What I tried to show by the Scripture is that there is no way Mariam Magdalene could have been "the disciple whom Yeshua loved" because, as shown by the passage quoted, (John 20:1-2) Mariam Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the disciple whom Yeshua loved what she had witnessed at the tomb.

But as far as what you have addressed to me in your response I do believe you have the wrong "John" because it was the greatest of all the Prophets who penned the Revelation of Yeshua while he was yet in the Macherus-Patmos Prison of Herod, (before he was beheaded). Where do you suppose Paul received his understanding? He received it not from man but from the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua as he plainly states, (Galatians 1:12). Yeshua received the same when he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and tempted of the Satan, and was with the Revelation 13:2 wild beasts, (Mark 1:13) and thus is the same Gospel that Paul preaches. Other than that I do not want to throw the thread off topic but that is my answer to the supposed "John" who penned the Revelation of Messiah Yeshua. :)

:sheep:

nonanomanon
July 16th, 2015, 06:01 AM
But as far as what you have addressed to me in your response I do believe you have the wrong "John" because it was the greatest of all the Prophets who penned the Revelation of Yeshua while he was yet in the Macherus-Patmos Prison of Herod, (before he was beheaded). Where do you suppose Paul received his understanding?

:mmph:
MARK 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him:
MARK 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
MARK 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.

(John the Baptist's Body was delivered to the Women, that concluded his revelation ... ... ... ... this eliminates the possibility of John the Baptist as the author of the Book of Revelation, because it is not completed, therefore the Apostle John's Body was not delivered to the Women, nor did it see Corruption)

The Apostle Paul believed he had a sound reason to prosecute the church, and they claimed that Jesus's Revelation was not completed and that the would come again. Which causes a controversy with the Gospel, because the Gospel says, Jesus's body was delivered to the church to complete his ministry. ... ... ... ... This is true in part, Jesus's Body was delivered to the Church (as a son of god or as the messiah), however, Jesus as God, did not deliver the "Body of Benjamin" to the Church (in order to remove the Curse and bring the Blessing).

The "Body of Benjamin" must be delivered to the Church to complete the Gospel's Program. God had later rebuked the Apostle Paul, in allowing him to see not just the Body of Benjamin which is the "Temple Stones", but beyond that he had seen "Star Wormwood" and was "Blinded", that is he had realized the vision of Heaven that Jesus talked about was not completed, but it was only completed in part. Once the Apostle Peter had realized this, he returned to the churches and to the Romans, and told them, they that had to immediately stop what they had begun to have done, but it was too late. The Romans left Jerusalem instead of keeping the Gospel there, and continued their condemnation, until this day, the end of time, where they are once again asked by the Gospel to repent, if they are faithful or not, we do not know as of yet.

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 11:02 AM
John 20:1-2
1. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.



Yea, first day of the week, early in the morning when it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to see the sepulcher of Jesus whom she had seen being buried by Joseph of Arimathea late Friday evening and saw that the stone had been removed and the tomb was empty. And mind you, we are talking about someone who had been prophesied in Mat. 12:40 to remain in the grave for three days and three nights. What happened?

Never minding that particularity but, how could Mary Magdalene not think of resurrection but that Jesus' body had been taken away and she did not know where they had put it? Because Jesus, throughout his Ministry had never said any thing about bodily resurrection. Why not? Because he was a Jew and bodily resurrection was not an item in the agenda of Judaism.

Then she ran away to the disciples of Jesus and reported about the empty tomb and Jesus' disciples did not believe her bur rather brushed away her delirious condition of probably a bad dream. (Luke 24:10,11) Why would the disciples of Jesus consider her words as an idle tale which made no sense? Because they were also Jewish and had never heard a word out of Jesus' mouth about bodily resurrection. Now, as if out of nowhere, millions of Christians have chosen to believe the words of Paul that Jesus did resurrect. (II Tim. 2:8) That's beyond comprehension.

nonanomanon
July 16th, 2015, 12:11 PM
Yea, first day of the week, early in the morning when it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to see the sepulcher of Jesus whom she had seen being buried by Joseph of Arimathea late Friday evening and saw that the stone had been removed and the tomb was empty. And mind you, we are talking about someone who had been prophesied in Mat. 12:40 to remain in the grave for three days and three nights. What happened?

Jesus was not just simply another prophet, he is the incarnation of God. For God's testimony to be completed, this would mean the Gospel is also completed. God only intended his testimony to be completed in part, this is where the church had made the mistake in their over zealousness, about the possibility of Jesus giving the blessing to them:

MARK 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
MARK 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

Jesus indicated that his body would see corruption, and that it would be feed to the Church. ... ... ... ... Judas in his over zealousness wanted to ensure Jesus's Body did see corruption, so he started a campaign to brand Jesus as a grevious: "blasphemer and rouser of the people", so that the Romans could Crucify Jesus, and he body could see corruption. Judas completely forgot or wanted to dismiss the fact that, the corruption Jesus's body would experience was a result of God subjecting him to the "Curse", in order to kill his body. Crucifixion was entirely not necessary, when Jacob wrestled with God, God had subjected his body to the same "Curse", but not as much as Jesus.

MATTHEW 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Jesus used this as a parable. If the Fruit of Jesus's Body is the "Tree of Life", then Jesus did not intend to give the "Fruit of the Tree", which removes the "Curse" at the time of his Crucifixion as a Man in a body of Flesh. Indicating that Crucifixion for Jesus was unprofitable. Jesus gave the "Fruit of his Body" at the Last Supper as a picture of the blessing the church would receive, by receiving the Holy Spirit. ................. Jesus said in short: "My Body of Flesh is Barren Forever" .... indicating that he must be crucified as revelation reports in a resurrected body, the "Temple Stones/UFOs" or the "Body of Benjamin" must be crucified. Judas was convicted of being overzealous but the Church after Judas had given them a rebuke did not repent, they continued as if Christ and the Apostles were criminals and as if the death of Jesus represented the invalidation of their teachings.


Never minding that particularity but, how could Mary Magdalene not think of resurrection but that Jesus' body had been taken away and she did not know where they had put it? Because Jesus, throughout his Ministry had never said any thing about bodily resurrection. Why not? Because he was a Jew and bodily resurrection was not an item in the agenda of Judaism.

There was a tremendous divide between the Church and the Apostles after Jesus was crucified, and after many people falsely reported that Jesus's body was stolen to convince people that he was still alive. ..................... Most of the Church believed the "Body of Jesus" was given to the Church, it saw the corruption of death, and therefore, the additional teachings of the apostles were simply fabrications, they could not be authenticate revelations from God. ..................... The Apostle Paul was acting under the Church's authority in prosecuting people that followed after the apostles in some way or another, because he was holding to their belief that the revelation was completed. ......................... Regardless of the church eventually not having the body of Jesus, they became corruptible very quickly, after the Crucifixion of Jesus, as the gospel indicates, there was no devout association between the apostles and Mary or Mary Magdalene.


Then she ran away to the disciples of Jesus and reported about the empty tomb and Jesus' disciples did not believe her bur rather brushed away her delirious condition of probably a bad dream. (Luke 24:10,11) Why would the disciples of Jesus consider her words as an idle tale which made no sense? Because they were also Jewish and had never heard a word out of Jesus' mouth about bodily resurrection. Now, as if out of nowhere, millions of Christians have chosen to believe the words of Paul that Jesus did resurrect. (II Tim. 2:8) That's beyond comprehension.

Jesus had indicated to the Apostle John beforehand that he was the, "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, and his Body wouldn't see Corruption", so they knew to some degree that the testimony of God, that is also of Jesus was not finished before he was crucified as a result of Judas's over zealousness.

Jesus also stated as you indicated, "after three days the temple will be rebuilt", so the apostles also held the fact that Jesus was going to remain in that tomb for "3 Days". However, in order to set an example about the position of the Gospel. Jesus was taken from the Tomb, and there was no body, no "Body of Benjamin" was in that tomb. .......................... ..........................

1. Judas betrayed Jesus because of his Over Zealousness, in wanting to believe the "Curse", was going to be removed, which is only done at the end of time.

2. Mary Magdalene continued in Judas's pattern of betrayal in refusing to believe that Jesus elected his Apostles to continue in the testimony that was started when Jesus began his ministry. The Fact that Jesus was not in the Tomb, seems to have invalided the testimony of the Apostles in the mind of Mary Magdelene ................ The Fact that she goes on to see Jesus Christ as a resurrected personality later on, only seems to enforce this position, even though it is wrong, she was simply overzealous like Judas, and the gospel describes this trend, in the prosecution of the apostles, but the language of euthanasia that follows is turncoated.

Dan Emanuel
July 16th, 2015, 12:21 PM
...Jesus, throughout his Ministry had never said any thing about bodily resurrection. Why not? Because he was a Jew and bodily resurrection was not an item in the agenda of Judaism.

Then she ran away to the disciples of Jesus and reported about the empty tomb and Jesus' disciples did not believe her bur rather brushed away her delirious condition of probably a bad dream. (Luke 24:10,11) Why would the disciples of Jesus consider her words as an idle tale which made no sense? Because they were also Jewish and had never heard a word out of Jesus' mouth about bodily resurrection. Now, as if out of nowhere, millions of Christians have chosen to believe the words of Paul that Jesus did resurrect. (II Tim. 2:8) That's beyond comprehension.Versus John 2:
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.You don't believe in Jesus.


Daniel

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 12:23 PM
[quote]Could you teach scripture for about two and half minutes off the top of your head and use quotes from scripture for about half that time? Without any notes? Just using your memory? That would take some a great deal of past learning and knowledge to accomplish that. Peter did that in Acts 2.

I could but, never mind me! I am not the one under examination here but Peter and, he was not the author of Acts 2. That speech was never delivered by Peter. He was a Jew and he had nothing against the Jewish authorities or the Jewish People for that matter to charge them with having crucified Jesus. He knew that the Romans were the ones who had crucified Jesus and not the Jews. (Acts 2:36) That speech was "written" by Luke and perhaps never delivered at all especially in Jerusalem.


Where and when did Peter learn scripture like that? Part of a child's education in those times was to learn scripture in the synagogues.

That scripture is from the gospel of Paul and not something which we learn in synagogues or Yeshivas.


Unlearned and ignorant refers to not having gone to what we would refer to a "Bible college" or some such institution.

Tell this to Luke. He was the one reporting about John and Peter as unlearned and ignorant fellas. (Acts 4:13)


The Sanhedrin would generally be more highly educated than fishermen. Saul of Tarsus had that higher education being a pupil of Gameliel.

Paul had a higher education alright but not at the feet of Gamaliel. He was educated in the Stoic University of Tarsus in the Cilicia. He was the son of a well-to-do coupe of Hellenistic Jews. He was never a pupil of Gamaliel. He was lying when he said so.


Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Why, because their business would not last if it was not from God? A Jew would think better than that. Six hundred years later Islam rose and it is growing to this day more than the Church of Paul. Are we to believe Islam is of God for lasting and overgrowing any other religion on earth? I don't think so.


Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Paul could have had some training in an around-the-corner yeshiva but a Jewish education from youth, I don't find any probability.


Funny though for the most part, the disciples knew more scripture accurately and practically.

How do you know it? There is nothing written by the Apostles of Jesus in the NT. The NT was canonized with only the gospel of Paul.


Stephen, Acts 6:8-10 is a clear example of that.

I don't think so. He could have happen at the time he is claimed to have lived but his testimony was totally Christian at a time when Christianity did not exist yet as Paul was only a teenager so to speak when Stephen was executed. (Acts 7:58) Given the contradiction, I choose to consider him never to have happened as the record of him just does not make any sense at all. Perhaps "Stephen" was only an allegory.


There is at least one person on this website who enjoys tooting his own horn regarding his Bible education, yet seems to have a great deal of trouble actually reading the actual words of scripture. He assumes he is right because of his education.

If you are talking about me, all you need to do is to correct me with the proper evidences without contradictions. It looks like you don't know how.


Jesus Christ loved all, but one was a noteworthy friend.

But of course! Who could be more noteworthy than his wife Mary Magdalene?


Peter did not necessarily love people more than other disciples, but Jesus Christ did encourage him to learn to love more by feeding those who would follow his leadership.

Except the Gentiles, said Jesus. (Mat. 10:5,6) I consider that a blunder by the Fathers of the Church because later, the Sect of the Nazarenes extended the gospel to the Gentiles too and Peter was the one assigned to take the gospel to them. (Acts 15:7)


No one is specifically named in reference to "the disciple whom Jesus loved".

Mary Magdalene was the disciple whom Jesus loved in a special way and there is nothing you can say.


John is not mentioned in that context, there is a far better candidate for that distinction than John

Of course not! Jesus was a straight Jew and not a Hellenistic one.

nonanomanon
July 16th, 2015, 01:04 PM
Versus John 2:[INDENT]18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Mark 14:51-53, the Apostle Paul throws his soiled undies at Jesus Christ, as a declaration that the "Curse", is going to be removed, because he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that Judas would ensure Jesus's body would receive corruption and his testimony would be completed .............. completing the testimony of God at the same time, and thus completing the Gospel. If that is indeed the Apostle Paul, he could not be a saved person, indicating that the Apostle Paul in his recordings of the Gospel, is simply parroting the teachings that he hears from the apostles and publishes them as his own.

John 2:20 viewed as an Equation? 40 Days of Repentance (in which Moses returns to go up the mountain for 40 Days like he gave the commandments, paralleling the 40 days of Noah's Flood, Rev. 12:15-17) .......... after the 40 Days, the SIXTH SEAL is opened, that begins the "3 Days of Darkness", after the SEVENTH SEAL is opened, the "3 Days of Darkness" are finished. If that is an equation however, we could also say this ..................

(13 Gons in one Lunar Year of 384)
46 Lunar Months of 1311 Days (each Lunar Month is 28.5 Days)

1311 Days is about 43.7 Solar Months of about 30 Days Each
Janurary to December = 12 Solar Months (2012)
Janurary to December = 12 Solar Months (2013)
Janurary to December = 12 Solar Months (2014)
Janurary to July = 7 Solar Months (7/17/2015, this is soon to be done)

July is described as the "Seventeenth Day of the Seventh Month", the Gospel says the days of Jesus are like Joseph (Moses) in revelation, so the 12,000 Day pattern is the same, going back to Moses, if that is true, they attempted to make the association of 7/17/2015, which is tomorrow.


I could but, never mind me! I am not the one under examination here but Peter and, he was not the author of Acts 2. That speech was never delivered by Peter. He was a Jew and he had nothing against the Jewish authorities or the Jewish People for that matter to charge them with having crucified Jesus. He knew that the Romans were the ones who had crucified Jesus and not the Jews. (Acts 2:36) That speech was "written" by Luke and perhaps never delivered at all especially in Jerusalem.

The Gospel exclaims the Apostle Judas was elected to betray Jesus, and the Apostle Paul was elected to come as a Gentile. Because the Gospel makes this statement, we could perhaps discredit certain books published under Paul, as theology that originated from him, perhaps.

MARK 9:26 And [the spirit] cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
MARK 9:27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
MARK 9:28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?

We could say, that Jesus's baptism of the Apostles at the "Last Supper", was not completed until Jesus was crucified. Once Jesus had been crucified, the Apostles could cast out evil spirits from the Church, this would authenticate the language from Acts 2, as not only happening after the Crucifixion, and possibly as originating from Peter with the Apostle Paul serving as the scribe, (as the "gentile" scribe according to his election).

Bright Raven
July 16th, 2015, 01:13 PM
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

You don't know biblical history. John wrote his Gospel and there is no mention of Mary being at the Last Supper. It really is a pretty foolish looking post. Mary was a follower of Jesus. Nowhere is she called a disciple. This was a position held by males not females.

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 01:29 PM
[quote]Jesus was not just simply another prophet, he is the incarnation of God.

Now, you are talking idolatry of the Greek kind. I am talking about a Jew called Yeshua. If you want to talk about idolatry, choose a Greek one, not a Jew.


For God's testimony to be completed, this would mean the Gospel is also completed. God only intended his testimony to be completed in part, this is where the church had made the mistaken in their over zealousness, about the possibility of Jesus giving the blessing to them:

What church are you talking about, not Christianity? All are Christians, Catholics or not.


MARK 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

The son of man in Hebrew means the mortal one. Jesus was a Hebrew one. Therefore, not God as God is not mortal.


MARK 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

This language is not Jewish. Jesus was a Jew. Therefore, it never happened.


Jesus indicated that he body would see corruption, and that it would be feed to the Church. Judas in his over zealousness wanted to ensure Jesus's Body did see corruption, so he started a campaign to brand Jesus as a grevious: "blasphemer and rouser of the people", so that the Romans could Crucify Jesus, and he body could see corruption. Judas completely forgot or wanted to dismiss the fact that, the corruption Jesus's body would experience was a result of God subjecting him to the "Curse", in order to kill his body. Crucifixion was entirely not necessary, when Jacob wrestled with God, God had subjected his body to the same "Curse", by not as much as Jesus.

Please! Enough of verbal juggling that means nothing.


MATTHEW 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

And you believe right away, and literally without a discount? Do you know what is a parable by definition? If you do, that was only a parable. If you don't believe, take a look at Mat. 24:32 for the explanation of the fig tree. Jesus was not talking about a real tree but only a parabolic one.


Jesus used this as a parable. If the Fruit of Jesus's Body is the "Tree of Life", then Jesus did not intend to give the "Fruit of the Tree", which removes the "Curse" at the time of his Crucifixion as a Man in a body of Flesh. Indicating that Crucifixion for Jesus was unprofitable. Jesus gave the "Fruit of his Body" at the Last Supper as a picture of the blessing the church would receive, by receiving the Holy Spirit. Jesus said in short: "My Body of Flesh is Barren Forever" .... indicating that he must be crucified as revelation reports in a resurrected body, the "Temple Stones/UFOs" or the "Body of Benjamin" must be crucified. Judas was convicted of being overzealous but the Church after Judas had given them a rebuke did not repent, they continued as if Christ and the Apostles were criminals and as if the death of Jesus represented the invalidation of their teachings.

No offense meant but, you rather have an unproductive though rich imagination.


There was a tremendous divide between the Church and the Apostles after Jesus was crucified, and after many people falsely reported that Jesus's body was stolen to convince people that he was still alive.

Mary Magdalene believed that Jesus' body had been stolen from the tomb because she had no idea of bodily resurrection. If you don't believe Jesus' body was stolen, who removed it from the tomb before the dawn of Sunday?


Most of the Church believed the "Body of Jesus" was given to the Church, it saw the corruption of death, and therefore, the additional teachings of the apostles were simply fabrications, they could not be authenticate revelations from God.

I have never heard of such a version.


The Apostle Paul was acting under the Church's authority in prosecuting people that followed after the apostles in some way or another, because he was holding to their believe that the revelation was completed.

I am aware of this "persecution of the followers of the Apostles" but of Paul against the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:1,2)


Regardless of the church eventually not having the body of Jesus, they became corruptible very quickly, after the Crucifixion of Jesus, as the gospel indicates, there was no devout association between the apostles and Mary or Mary Magdalene.

That's an evidence that John was not at the Calvary but Mary Magdalene was.


Jesus had indicated to the Apostle John beforehand that he was the, "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved, and his Body wouldn't see Corruption", so they knew to some degree that the testimony of God, that is also of Jesus was not finished before he was crucified as a result of Judas's over zealousness.

I don't think Judas had any thing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Not Judas alone but together with all the disciples who were acclaiming Jesus to be the king of the Jews at the entrance of Jerusalem. That's why Jesus was arrested and crucified. Hence his verdict: INRI. (Luke 19:37-40)


Jesus also stated as you indicated, "after three days the temple will be rebuilt", so the apostles also held the fact that Jesus was going to remain in that tomb for "3 Days". However, in order to set an example about the position of the Gospel. Jesus was taken from the Tomb, and there was no body, no "Body of Benjamin" was in that tomb.

So, why the need of the prophecy that he would remain three days and three nights in the heart of the earth? (Mat. 12:40)

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 01:43 PM
Versus John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. You don't believe in Jesus.

Daniel

Jesus had not said any thing about bodily resurrection so that his disciples could remember now and believe. This record is messed up. Jews once dead will never raise from the dead. (Isa. 26:14)

Dan Emanuel
July 16th, 2015, 01:55 PM
Jesus had not said any thing about bodily resurrection so that his disciples could remember now and believe. This record is messed up...Confirmation bias.

...Jews once dead will never raise from the dead. (Isa. 26:14)Isaiah 26:19 KJV


Daniel

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 02:02 PM
[quote]The Gospel exclaims the Apostle Judas was elected to betray Jesus, and the Apostle Paul was elected to come as a Gentile.

That would be a divine contradiction of man's attribute of Freewill. Any one can see that it was all planned by the Church after the fact. And if Paul was elected to go to the Gentiles, when did he ever do it? Throughout his life he never left the Jews in peace from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2; 28:17)


Because the Gospel makes this statement, we could perhaps discredit certain books published under Paul, as theology that originated from him, perhaps.

If you ask me, the whole of the NT if not 80% of it is from Paul.


We could say, that Jesus's baptism of the Apostles at the "Last Supper", was not completed until Jesus was crucified.

Against his will if you read the text about his three prayers during that last night at the Gethsemane.


Once Jesus had been crucified, the Apostles could cast out evil spirits from the Church, this would authenticate the language from Acts 2, as not only happening after the Crucifixion, and possibly as originating from Peter with the Apostle Paul serving as the scribe, (as the "gentile" scribe according to his election).

Paul was never a scribe. He had himself a scribe whom to dictate to. His scribe was called Silvanus. (II Cor. 1:19) The language in Acts 2 for that speech attributed to Peter was not Jewish. Since Luke was the writer of the book of Acts, he was the one who wrote that speech which was not delivered in Jerusalem or he would be killed by a Jewish Siccarii.

nonanomanon
July 16th, 2015, 02:06 PM
Mary Magdalene believed that Jesus' body had been stolen from the tomb because she had no idea of bodily resurrection. If you don't believe Jesus' body was stolen, who removed it from the tomb before the dawn of Sunday?

Peter and John were caught by surprise, most likely because Jesus was missing from the Tomb before "3 Days and Nights" had passed. If this is true, the Gospel records, Peter and John were ignorant, Jesus talked nothing about going to the father in less then "3 Days and Night".



So, why the need of the prophecy that he would remain three days and three nights in the heart of the earth? (Mat. 12:40)

1. Fulfilled Prophecy - (Luke 2:43-46) Jesus comes from the Tomb before "Three Days/Nights", after the Crucifixion
2. Unfulfilled Prophecy - MATTHEW 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
3. Unfulfilled Prophecy - MATTHEW 26:61 And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.


Jesus had not said any thing about bodily resurrection so that his disciples could remember now and believe. This record is messed up. Jews once dead will never raise from the dead. (Isa. 26:14)

Unfulfilled Prophecy of the Body of Benjamin being Revealed, so that it is destroyed in "3 Days/Nights"

DEUTERONOMY 33:11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.
DEUTERONOMY 33:12 [And] of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; [and the LORD] shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
DEUTERONOMY 33:13 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD [be] his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath,
DEUTERONOMY 33:14 And for the precious fruits [brought forth] by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,

When Jesus withered the Fig Tree he said: "My Body will not produce any Fruit as an offering to God". Jesus also clearly said that he would: "Bring the Body of Benjamin ("Temple Stones"), in order to destroy it at the "3 Days of Darkness" recorded in Revelation". In Deuteronomy 33:11, Jesus says my "Body" will produce fruit when I rise again. Not his Body of Flesh, but the "Body of Benjamin" that must be destroyed, in the "3 Days of Darkness", in order to bring the blessing of Jospeh, which removes the Curse of Jacob, or simply the Curse.

"Babylon is Fallen is revealed as the Body of Benjamin", that is destroyed in 3 Days of Darkness of Revelation

ISAIAH 21:8 And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights:
ISAIAH 21:9 And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, [with] a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

The Book of Revelation does not say the "Body of Benjamin" ("Temple Stones"), that are revealed in order to be destroyed ... the gospel connects these together by saying, the Horsemen of the Lord are Fallen to divide the "daytime ... whole night", that is "3 Days of Darkness" recounted in Isiah 21:8-9 this is when Jeremiah 33:20-21 is fulfilled, when the "Key of David" (Rev. 5:5) is used to separate the "Body of Benjamin", so the Lord's Body can be Crucified to offer to the Lord, and bring the Blessing of Joseph, and complete the Unfulfilled Prophecy recounted in the New Testament of the "3 Days of Darkness".



That would be a divine contradiction of man's attribute of Freewill. Any one can see that it was all planned by the Church after the fact. And if Paul was elected to go to the Gentiles, when did he ever do it? Throughout his life he never left the Jews in peace from his first station in Damascus and until his last in Rome. (Acts 9:1,2; 28:17)


Acts 28:3-8 ... The Apostle Paul baptizes in the name of the Serpent (a picture of the Holy Spirit) to perform miracles, not in the name of the Holy Ghost, this is a picture of of Paul serving as a gentile. Paul calls on the Serpent to heal a blood curse, where as Jesus called on God to heal a blood curse, Mark 5:25-29.

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 02:11 PM
You don't know biblical history. John wrote his Gospel and there is no mention of Mary being at the Last Supper. It really is a pretty foolish looking post. Mary was a follower of Jesus. Nowhere is she called a disciple. This was a position held by males not females.

Are you implying that Jesus was a homosexual to hang around with 12 young guys and calling one of them his beloved? I prefer that he was a respectful Rabbi married with a woman he loved and became known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Don't you feel much better that way? Why go for the decisions of the Catholic Church which was afraid that Jesus could be less than a god by being married to an earthly woman? Simply amazing!

Bright Raven
July 16th, 2015, 02:23 PM
Are you implying that Jesus was a homosexual to hang around with 12 young guys and calling one of them his beloved? I prefer that he was a respectful Rabbi married with a woman he loved and became known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. Don't you feel much better that way? Why go for the decisions of the Catholic Church which was afraid that Jesus could be less than a god by being married to an earthly woman? Simply amazing!

I'm not a Catholic. Why do you even bring up homosexuality. How stupid. Give references as to where you think he was married. Actually, no reply is needed to this nonsensical post. Jesus a homosexual or married, how absurd.

Ben Masada
July 16th, 2015, 02:23 PM
Confirmation bias.
Isaiah 26:19 KJV

Daniel

No bias! Why didn't the disciples believe Mary Magdalene when she reported that Jesus had been raised up from the tomb? Because they were Jews and Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. Isaiah 26:19 is about the "dead" Jews in exile who choose not to return to the Land of Israel. (Ezek. 37:12)

And for Daniel, you did not complete the quote but I am almost sure you refer to Dan. 12:2. That's about the "Dry Bones" of Ezek. 37:12. Many will awake to return to the Land of the living aka Israel and some to the shame to remain in exile in everlasting contempt.

nonanomanon
July 16th, 2015, 02:53 PM
I'm not a Catholic. Why do you even bring up homosexuality. How stupid. Give references as to where you think he was married. Actually, no reply is needed to this nonsensical post. Jesus a homosexual or married, how absurd.

:rain:

Mary Magdelene as the Mother of Jesus's Baby, and Paul portraying himself as a eunuch?

ACTS 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
ACTS 23:13 And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.
ACTS 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.
ACTS 23:15 Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.
ACTS 23:16 And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.

Paul had to discredit the Jewish account of Jesus at that time. Paul had to do this because God ordained him to serve as a "Gentile Scribe" for the unlearned apostles. The Jewish People refused to record the Gospel, because Jesus did not deliver them from the Romans, or take them to the promised land. Which the Gospel says the Jewish people are promised an inheritance "Forever after the order of Melchisedek, a Separatist Inheritance* of a new planet of their own. ................. Paul had to develop a philosophy to discredit the Jews and to unite the Church so that they would carry the Gospel instead of the Hebrews, as the gospel intended. Mary Magdelene is not named as the mother of Jesus's Baby in Acts 23:16, but this conspiracy that prompted the Jews to demand his life, since he was introducing a "New Commandment, a play on, or reference to the 40 Days in which Moses recieved the 10 Commendmants in Acts 23:13" ............. then it follows the jews were sufficiently discredited, if Paul came as a Gentile, then he could bless without the need of repentance, so the doors of sin were opened.

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 02:02 AM
[quote]Peter and John were caught by surprise, most likely because Jesus was missing from the Tomb before "3 Days and Nights" had passed.

That's not true. They ALL were caught by surprise that Mary Magdalene was not making sense with her idle tale. (Luke 24:10,11)


If this is true, the Gospel records, Peter and John were ignorant, Jesus talked nothing about going to the father in less then "3 Days and Night".

Jesus never talked any thing at all about going to the Father according to Mat. 12:40. Hence Mary's ignorance about who had raised Jesus from the tomb. (John 20:15)


1. Fulfilled Prophecy - (Luke 2:43-46) Jesus comes from the Tomb before "Three Days/Nights", after the Crucifixion.

So, what prophecy was lying the one of Mat. 12:40 or that of Luke 2:43-46?


2. Unfulfilled Prophecy - MATTHEW 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So, you have decided to go for the one of Luke 2:43-46? Too bad because, Luke 2:43-46 has nothing to do with crucifixion, death and resurrection at all.


3. Unfulfilled Prophecy - MATTHEW 26:61 And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.

If Jesus meant by his body to be the Temple of God, are you implying that he was of a suicidal character? To destroy it with the cross and to rebuild it with the resurrection?


Unfulfilled Prophecy of the Body of Benjamin being Revealed, so that it is destroyed in "3 Days/Nights".

Where is the quote for that?


DEUTERONOMY 33:11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.

Nothing to do with death and resurrection.


DEUT. 33:12 [And] of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; [and the LORD] shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders. DEUT. 33:13 And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD [be] his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, DEUT. 33:14 And for the precious fruits [brought forth] by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,

Those above are the blessings of Moses over the children of Israel.


c When Jesus withered the Fig Tree he said: "My Body will not produce any Fruit as an offering to God". Jesus also clearly said that he would: "Bring the Body of Benjamin ("Temple Stones"), in order to destroy it at the "3 Days of Darkness" recorded in Revelation". In Deuteronomy 33:11, Jesus says my "Body" will produce fruit when I rise again. Not his Body of Flesh, but the "Body of Benjamin" that must be destroyed, in the "3 Days of Darkness", in order to bring the blessing of Jospeh, which removes the Curse of Jacob, or simply the Curse.

The above about the fig tree was only a parable spoken by Jesus. I don't perceive any thing related to the disciple whom Jesus loved.


"Babylon is Fallen is revealed as the Body of Benjamin", that is destroyed in 3 Days of Darkness of Revelation. ISAIAH 21:8 And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights: ISAIAH 21:9 And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, [with] a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

I don't see any connection with the issue we are discussing in the thread.


The Book of Revelation does not say the "Body of Benjamin" ("Temple Stones"), that are revealed in order to be destroyed ... the gospel connects these together by saying, the Horsemen of the Lord are Fallen to divide the "daytime ... whole night", that is "3 Days of Darkness" recounted in Isiah 21:8-9 this is when Jeremiah 33:20-21 is fulfilled, when the "Key of David" (Rev. 5:5) is used to separate the "Body of Benjamin", so the Lord's Body can be Crucified to offer to the Lord, and bring the Blessing of Joseph, and complete the Unfulfilled Prophecy recounted in the New Testament of the "3 Days of Darkness".

And what does it have any thing to do with John and Peter?


Acts 28:3-8 ... The Apostle Paul baptizes in the name of the Serpent (a picture of the Holy Spirit) to perform miracles, not in the name of the Holy Ghost, this is a picture of of Paul serving as a gentile. Paul calls on the Serpent to heal a blood curse, where as Jesus called on God to heal a blood curse, Mark 5:25-29.

That's not what we are interested above with the issue about John and Peter. Why are you trying to break the thread? You could open a whole thread to discuss what you need to convey.

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 02:16 AM
I'm not a Catholic. Why do you even bring up homosexuality. How stupid. Give references as to where you think he was married. Actually, no reply is needed to this nonsensical post. Jesus a homosexual or married, how absurd.

I simply asked if you are implying that Jesus was a homosexual to behave the way you want us to believe: Hanging around with 12 guys and calling one of them his beloved. Your hostile reaction is rather trying to hide something for that matter. I am simply trying to enhance how serious Jesus was as a Rabbi who in the First Century needed to be married before being ordained as such. Even today it is the same here in Israel.

daqq
July 17th, 2015, 03:40 AM
Wow, I am glad I bailed out of this thread . . . :rip:

:sheep:

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 04:32 AM
Wow, I am glad I bailed out of this thread . . . :rip:

:sheep:

Why? Perhaps your opinion could be valuable to either side or to both. Some Christians seem not to understand that I am championing the cause of Jesus who was a Jew and whose Faith was Judaism. You agree with me, don't you?

daqq
July 17th, 2015, 05:17 AM
Why? Perhaps your opinion could be valuable to either side or to both. Some Christians seem not to understand that I am championing the cause of Jesus who was a Jew and whose Faith was Judaism. You agree with me, don't you?

Well, yes, I do agree with the things you have just said in this post I have quoted. However, marriage and-or homosexuality? I know you did not insinuate the one but either way both are out of the question. The name Bar-Jesus, (Aramaic, "Son of Jesus") ought to tell you that Yeshua had no children of his own. The Nazar-Essenes were completely set apart unto the Father throughout all of their upbringing and all of their lives. Do none here understand that the flesh is allegorized in the feminine gender?

John 10:14-18
14. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15. As the Father knows me, even so I know the Father: and I lay down my soul [psuchen - feminine gender] for the sheep.
16. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
17. Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, [psuchen - feminine] that I might receive her [auten - feminine] again.
18. No man takes her [auten - feminine] from me, but I lay her [auten - feminine] down of myself. I have authority to lay her [auten - feminine] down, and I have authority to receive her [auten - feminine] again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

If therefore one does not rightly divide between himself and his own, (feminine) earthen vessel, the same will not understand who is "Mariam the Magdalene", or "Mariam the Yakobos", or "Mariam of Klophas", etc., etc., and on and on. It is right there in the Testimony of Yeshua if only a man would hear it:

Matthew 10:37-39
37. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38. And he that does not take up his own stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.
39. He that finds his soul shall apollumi-destroy her: and he that apollumi-destroys his soul for my sake shall find her.

Matthew 16:21-26
21. From that time forth began Yeshua to show unto his talmidim how that he must go unto Yerushalaim, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22. Then Petros took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Far be it from you, Master: this shall not be unto you!
23. But he turned, and said unto Petros, Get you behind me, Satan, you are an offense unto me; for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of man.
24. Then said Yeshua unto his talmidim, If any will come after me, let him utterly forsake himself, and take up his own stake, and follow me.
25. For whosoever will save his soul shall apollumi-destroy her: and whosoever will apollumi-destroy his soul for my sake shall find her.
26. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

:sheep:

Ben Masada
July 17th, 2015, 06:47 AM
[quote]Well, yes, I do agree with the things you have just said in this post I have quoted. However, marriage and-or homosexuality? I know you did not insinuate the one but either way both are out of the question. The name Bar-Jesus, (Aramaic, "Son of Jesus") ought to tell you that Yeshua had no children of his own. The Nazar-Essenes were completely set apart unto the Father throughout all of their upbringing and all of their lives. Do none here understand that the flesh is allegorized in the feminine gender?

Who implied any thing about Jesus having had children? I didn't. But to get married was a commandment according to Gen. 2:24 and, Jesus said that he came to fulfill ALL the Law and the Prophets down to the letter, even the dot of the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19) To be true to his words he was supposed to get married and be of one flesh with his wife, whether children would be born or not out of the union. To be ordained as a Rabbi, he did not have to have children but he had to be a married man. Paul himself knew about that law. (I Tim. 3:2)


John 10:14-18 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knows me, even so I know the Father: and I lay down my soul for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Believe me, a wife could have helped Jesus do that job much more easily.


17. Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my soul, that I might receive again. No man takes her from me, but I lay her down of myself. I have authority to lay her down, and I have authority to receive again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

That was not true of Jesus. In the Gethsemane he prayed three times asking the Lord not to allow him to die on the cross. This is no willingness to lay it down himself.


If therefore one does not rightly divide between himself and his own, (feminine) earthen vessel, the same will not understand who is "Mariam the Magdalene", or "Mariam the Yakobos", or "Mariam of Klophas", etc., etc., and on and on. It is right there in the Testimony of Yeshua if only a man would hear it:

This has nothing to do with the disciple whom Jesus loved aka Mary Magdalene.


Matthew 10:37-39 He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

That's not Jewish because the love of God is translated by loving our neighbor, especially our own family.


And he that does not take up his own stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. He that finds his soul shall destroy her: and he that destroys his soul for my sake shall find her.

That's not Jewish but Christian masochism.


Matthew 16:21-26 From that time forth began Yeshua to show unto his talmidim how that he must go unto Yerushalaim, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

That's not Jewish but Pauline demonstration of his grudge against the Jewish authorities.


Then Petros took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Far be it from you, Master: this shall not be unto you! But he turned, and said unto Petros, Get you behind me, Satan, you are an offense unto me; for you savor not the things that be of Elohim, but those that be of man.

This is neither Jewish nor makes any sense. In Peter, Satan was trying to save Jesus from being arrested. In Judas, Satan was rushing the death of Jesus. Was Satan divided against himself? Better forget the whole thing altogether.


Then said Yeshua unto his talmidim, If any will come after me, let him utterly forsake himself, and take up his own stake, and follow me.

Not Jewish. Perhaps this contributed for Jesus not to be welcomed as the Messiah.


For whosoever will save his soul shall destroy her: and whosoever will destroy his soul for my sake shall find her. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Not Jewish at all. We don't have a soul. We are souls. According to Gen. 2:7, when the Lord formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. To become is to be and not to have. A soul is only the combination of the body with the breath of life. That combination is over with death.

Caino
July 17th, 2015, 09:38 AM
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

As far as I am concerned, John neither wrote the books attributed to him in the NT nor was he the disciple whom Jesus loved. First, if you read Acts 4:13, Luke reports about John and Peter as unlearnt and ignorant men. As you must know, I hope, illiterate people cannot write books. And second, it does not fit to a Jew of the "size" of Jesus in the First Century to hang around with 12 guys while calling one of them the disciple whom he loved. Even to mention the possibility if it had been true, would be embarrassing even to consider.

Why would John be mentioned as the disciple whom Jesus loved and not Peter who loved Jesus more than all the others? (John 21:15) For three times Jesus tested Peter as if he didn't care if the others did not love him too; even John. (John 21:16,17)

If you ask me, yes, there was a disciple whom Jesus really loved and whose love was honorable to be mentioned. That disciple was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus loved and for whom Jesus left his father and mother to cling to as a husband does to his wife and to become with her of one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) It is only obvious that Mary Magdalene followed Jesus many times to deserve that title of the disciple whom Jesus loved. And Mary Magdalene was with Jesus to the last moment of his life. (John 19:25,26)

John was a little conceited and wrote about himself in that way, sort of like the redacted history of the Israelites written in Babylon wherein they wrote about themselves as Gods "chosen people" while recasting their entire history. It's a human thing called pride.

nonanomanon
July 17th, 2015, 05:11 PM
That's not true. They ALL were caught by surprise that Mary Magdalene was not making sense with her idle tale. (Luke 24:10,11)
.................................................. ............
Jesus never talked any thing at all about going to the Father according to Mat. 12:40. Hence Mary's ignorance about who had raised Jesus from the tomb. (John 20:15)

The romans had a custom of making their helmets shine, to the point of being blinding ......................... John 8:5-9, Moses was commanded to "smote the rock", and Moses took the "bones of joseph" ............. Joseph comes to redeem humanity and to give the blessing .............. so what did Jesus draw in the sand ................... the Romans saw something in the sand also, and from that point forward they made a covenant to give Jesus a "Rolling Stone" on his tomb. ................. when Mary Magdelene saw the Tomb was empty, perhaps she was said it was empty because the "Temple Stone, or the Body of Benjamin, or the Rock of Joseph" was absent from the tomb. .............. or perhaps she went on to believe that the Romans would be baptized in the name of Joseph, because of the "Rolling Stone", the Angel had sat on when he told Mary Magdelene, that Jesus was not here, as the angel touched and moved the stone. ................. there was a division between the church and the apostles after the death of jesus because of the over zealous nature of the church that continued after the death of judas, unfortunately.


So, what prophecy was lying the one of Mat. 12:40 or that of Luke 2:43-46?

Jesus rose out of the tomb before "3 Days were Finished", and there was no "Body of Benjamin or Rock of Joseph (Temple Stones) revealed. Further more, Jesus did appear in the Temple on the "3rd Day", when he went into the Church to show "Thomas" his body had been resurrected ............. before that time Jesus was trolling about, talking to the believers, so it appeared he had left the tomb on the "3rd Day", to the Church, because they were not going to listen, because of their sin (John 20:19 and John 20:27). The Prophecy of Luke 2:43-46 was fulfilled, the Prophecies about Jesus being in the earth for 3 Days like Jonah were not fulfilled.


If Jesus meant by his body to be the Temple of God, are you implying that he was of a suicidal character? To destroy it with the cross and to rebuild it with the resurrection?

?
1. Seventy Souls out of Jacob (Ex 1:5) = Jacob Wrestled with God (Jacob as a Son of Man)
2. Seventy Angels are Slain (Dan 9:24) = God looses mankind's sin increasingly to the end
3. Joseph is the Seventy Angel that is slain (Luke 3, counting backwards, beginning with God) = Joseph reigns for 150 days as the Antichrist, and when that is over, the universe is over
4. Jesus and Joseph are compared together (Luke 3:23)

Jesus revealed what happens when the 150 Days of Star Wormwood in Revelation begins, Jesus as the "Body of Benjamin" must be removed in the "3 Days of Darkness" .......... so that the Tribe of Joseph can be established as the Seventieth, of Jacob, of Daniel ...................... AT SOME POINT THE: 70th Son of Man from Egypt will equal the 70th Generation of Luke that produces Joseph. (Daniel is counting Angels Heaven side, Christ is the 70th Angel or the Lamb that is slain, in order to allow the 70th Son of Man from Egypt to reign under Joseph, and in order to allow the 70th Generation of Luke under Joseph to take place). (70 Angels of Daniel, 70 Sons of Man from Egypt of Jacob, and 70 Generations of Luke ending with Joseph, are not equal at the moment, and they are not counting the same things, but when the 150 days of Star Wormwood Begins, they will all be equal .............. Jesus acted this out with the crucifixion, but Jesus is not the Antichrist, or the 70th Son of Man, and Jesus will not be in the flesh with the 70 Generation at the end of time during the 150 days of Star Wormwood).



Where is the quote for that?

"The Body of Benjamin must be revealed before the 3 Days of Darkness when it is to be destroyed" ................ Yes it was revealed today. There will be 39 days left after today, to the "3 Days of Darkness" .......................... Judges 20, counts the "First Day, Second Day, and Third Day", but reveals the 144,000 of Benjamin relative to these "3 Days of Darkness" ................ it has been revealed today on the "seventeenth day of the seventh month".

(Jesus Christ did not reveal the "Body of Benjamin", "Rock of Joseph", or the "Temple Stones, UFOs", all being the same reference because the supernatural body only takes one expression in our environment, relatively speaking. If the tomb of Jesus Christ was empty, then, the "Heart of the Earth, was not revealed in 3 Days", as the New Testament Commands ............. this will be done in approximately 39 more days, which are the 40 days of the "Flood Rain of Noah", or the repentance of 40 days (rev. 12:15-17) at the end of time, before the this is done on the "3 Days of Darkness" ............. this is soon to be done).

(A number of cameras and video recording devices were there, if the small display of benjamin was not enough, only genetic dan is lunatic enough to use force to further validate the conclusion, but I didn't see them do much of anything ................. it is a good thing if Judah's Inheritances is given to the USA only and they are the only benefactor, this is a result of faith, and a conviction of sin, this is the gospel's intended result ............. in parenthesis, nightly walks next week to mop up the leftovers ........... the tsunami is to be done, but this depends on the level of force, so this depends on you, on what you need to do, to have these things done to you)

daqq
July 18th, 2015, 03:21 AM
Who implied any thing about Jesus having had children? I didn't. But to get married was a commandment according to Gen. 2:24 and, Jesus said that he came to fulfill ALL the Law and the Prophets down to the letter, even the dot of the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19) To be true to his words he was supposed to get married and be of one flesh with his wife, whether children would be born or not out of the union. To be ordained as a Rabbi, he did not have to have children but he had to be a married man. Paul himself knew about that law. (I Tim. 3:2)


Believe me, a wife could have helped Jesus do that job much more easily.


That was not true of Jesus. In the Gethsemane he prayed three times asking the Lord not to allow him to die on the cross. This is no willingness to lay it down himself.


This has nothing to do with the disciple whom Jesus loved aka Mary Magdalene.


That's not Jewish because the love of God is translated by loving our neighbor, especially our own family.


That's not Jewish but Christian masochism.


That's not Jewish but Pauline demonstration of his grudge against the Jewish authorities.


This is neither Jewish nor makes any sense. In Peter, Satan was trying to save Jesus from being arrested. In Judas, Satan was rushing the death of Jesus. Was Satan divided against himself? Better forget the whole thing altogether.


Not Jewish. Perhaps this contributed for Jesus not to be welcomed as the Messiah.


Not Jewish at all. We don't have a soul. We are souls. According to Gen. 2:7, when the Lord formed man from the dust of the earth, He breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. To become is to be and not to have. A soul is only the combination of the body with the breath of life. That combination is over with death.

Saying "that's not Jewish" to everything just shows why this will not work. I say Yeshua has been given the right to decide who and what is Jewish while you say that your Rabbi's and Sages are the ones who have that right. And, yes, I do agree with you, of course, that the first man became a living soul and therefore man is a living soul. But that is to say only a living soul until one intentionally and willfully eats from sour grapes. After that you are a dead man walking and your teeth are set one edge, and no more can you blame the first man Adam for every one dies for his own sins. Essentially I know I have the quickening agent and that is the last Adam who was made a quickening Spirit. You apparently put your trust in Rabbi's and Sages to quicken your soul into spirit? I don't want to put words into your mouth so my question is sincere. Anyway I do not need your Rabbi's and Sages to tell me who and what a Jew is and if these things be as they be then neither do you need me here. You already have in the writings everything that I would argue from this point on; it comes down strictly to a question of leadership, and the Testimony of Yeshua is my Rabbi-Teacher unlocking Torah. :)

:sheep:

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 08:26 AM
John was a little conceited and wrote about himself in that way, sort of like the redacted history of the Israelites written in Babylon wherein they wrote about themselves as Gods "chosen people" while recasting their entire history. It's a human thing called pride.

No, John the apostle never wrote any thing in the NT. All the gospels were written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul.

Bright Raven
July 18th, 2015, 08:30 AM
No, John the apostle never wrote any thing in the NT. All the gospels were written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul.

:chuckle: Get serious. Read some biblical history

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 08:31 AM
deleted for repetition.

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 08:57 AM
Saying "that's not Jewish" to everything just shows why this will not work. I say Yeshua has been given the right to decide who and what is Jewish while you say that your Rabbi's and Sages are the ones who have that right. And, yes, I do agree with you, of course, that the first man became a living soul and therefore man is a living soul. But that is to say only a living soul until one intentionally and willfully eats from sour grapes. After that you are a dead man walking and your teeth are set one edge, and no more can you blame the first man Adam for every one dies for his own sins. Essentially I know I have the quickening agent and that is the last Adam who was made a quickening Spirit. You apparently put your trust in Rabbi's and Sages to quicken your soul into spirit? I don't want to put words into your mouth so my question is sincere. Anyway I do not need your Rabbi's and Sages to tell me who and what a Jew is and if these things be as they be then neither do you need me here. You already have in the writings everything that I would argue from this point on; it comes down strictly to a question of leadership, and the Testimony of Yeshua is my Rabbi-Teacher unlocking Torah. :)

:sheep:

If I agree with every thing Christians say here in this forum as being Jewish, I might as well lose my Jewish identity altogether. So, when I say that this or that is not Jewish and you are interested further, ask why and I'll explain to you why.

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 09:00 AM
:chuckle: Get serious. Read some biblical history

Oh! I thought you had decided to ignore me. Welcome back anyway. If you are interested in the truth we have a lot to say to each other. I am serious. What part of History you would like to talk about?

daqq
July 18th, 2015, 09:46 AM
If I agree with every thing Christians say here in this forum as being Jewish, I might as well lose my Jewish identity altogether. So, when I say that this or that is not Jewish and you are interested further, ask why and I'll explain to you why.

Okay, for example, in one of your previous posts to me herein you say that "to get married was a commandment according to Genesis 2:24". Can you post written evidence from your sources to back up what you have stated as fact? For what you say does not compute and rather seems nothing more than a bold unfounded statement simply designed to support your paradigm:


Who implied any thing about Jesus having had children? I didn't. But to get married was a commandment according to Gen. 2:24

Unless you can show me from the writings why what you say is fact then I say that you would have been better off to simply listen to Rashi and go no further:


Rashi
one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/jewish/Chapter-2.htm#showrashi=true


For what Rashi says here is truly true! :) :chuckle:

:sheep:

Ben Masada
July 18th, 2015, 11:08 AM
Okay, for example, in one of your previous posts to me herein you say that "to get married was a commandment according to Genesis 2:24". Can you post written evidence from your sources to back up what you have stated as fact? For what you say does not compute and rather seems nothing more than a bold unfounded statement simply designed to support your paradigm:

Unless you can show me from the writings why what you say is fact then I say that you would have been better off to simply listen to Rashi and go no further:

For what Rashi says here is truly true! :) :chuckle:

:sheep:

You must know that what identifies the commandments in the Decalogue is the characteristic of "Thou shall or thou shall not" if you read Gen. 2:24 it goes thus: "Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife and they both shall be of one flesh. That's a commandment upon not only the Jews but upon all Mankind. Now, when Jesus declared that he had come to fulfill all the laws down to the letter as we have in Mat. 5:17-19, he would have contradicted himself to live all his life as a single man.

daqq
July 18th, 2015, 11:37 AM
You must know that what identifies the commandments in the Decalogue is the characteristic of "Thou shall or thou shall not" if you read Gen. 2:24 it goes thus: "Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife and they both shall be of one flesh. That's a commandment upon not only the Jews but upon all Mankind. Now, when Jesus declared that he had come to fulfill all the laws down to the letter as we have in Mat. 5:17-19, he would have contradicted himself to live all his life as a single man.

I know how your reading of it goes and I know what your point was, which is why I brought it up; you are insinuating that Yeshua is somehow disqualified to be a Rabbi if he was not married, and I see now that you have insinuated that sentiment again so I need not quote the entirety of your previous post on that matter. However you have still not shown me any writings outside of your own words that teach what you are asserting. Every man is not commanded to get married. Marriage is ordained of God but that does not require every man to get married before he can teach. It may well have been customary but what you have tried to assert was not the teaching in first century Judaism, (unless you can come up with some sources). As I said, I have my sources in the Apostolic writings, and even Paul having been a Pharisee of Pharisees, fully trained up in Torah, makes no mention of what you have asserted. And even if you can come up with something from Talmud those are compiled after the time of Yeshua.

Stripe
July 18th, 2015, 11:52 AM
“Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”
John‬ 11:5‬ NKJV‬‬
http://bible.com/114/jhn.11.5.nkjv

Bright Raven
July 18th, 2015, 11:54 AM
Oh! I thought you had decided to ignore me. Welcome back anyway. If you are interested in the truth we have a lot to say to each other. I am serious. What part of History you would like to talk about?

0-100 AD. And the Gospels were written when?

Stripe
July 18th, 2015, 12:08 PM
“Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”
John‬ 11:5‬ NKJV‬‬
http://bible.com/114/jhn.11.5.nkjv

Also, there is a word in the Greek for a female disciple (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3102&t=KJV), but it is not used for "the disciple Jesus loved."

Bright Raven
July 18th, 2015, 09:26 PM
John 19:25-27 Modern English Version (MEV)

25 But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time, this disciple took her to his own home.

nonanomanon
July 19th, 2015, 05:18 PM
Also, there is a word in the Greek for a female disciple (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3102&t=KJV), but it is not used for "the disciple Jesus loved."

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k492/psalmsamuel/Sound%20Resonance_zpsi6axsrtc.jpeg

The Short Answer is no, there was no Women Disciple because Jesus does not teach them the gospel can be divorced. ................ Jesus goes on to say in Matthew 19:8, that when he appointed Moses as a representation of the Messiah, he allowed divorce. Jesus also named, "Moses and Elias (God)" as the two witnesses ................ indicating that at the end of time God would divorce his Gospel under Moses the Antichrist. That is the Short Answer, now here is the longer answer:

LUKE 20:27 Then came to [him] certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
LUKE 20:28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

Lets begin this way: If Jesus was not resurrected, then the "3 Days of Darkness, of Jesus being in the Heart of the Earth", would of been fulfilled when he was crucified. Jesus would of invalided Moses being placed into the Heart of the Earth, and thus, Jesus would of completed the Gospel. Jesus did not stay in the tomb for "3 Days and 3 Nights". Obviously the Argument of Jesus completing the Gospel is immediately Invalidated, but remember they are speaking to Jesus before he was crucified.

Lets Continue this way: Moses was placed into the Heart of the Earth, when he died, his body didn't see corruption. Moses did not produce the "BODY OF BENJAMIN/ufos that mark star wormwood", so MOSES DID NOT GIVE SEED. ......................... Now since Moses did not give Seed, they are trying to make the claim that Jesus Christ will give seed, that is that Jesus Christ will produce the "BODY OF BENJAMIN", when he goes into the Heart of the Earth. .............................. They knew based on what Jesus taught about "Going to the Father and sending the Comforter", and also naming the Apostle John as his "Loved", that Jesus clearly indicated the crucifixion was not a representation of Divorce. So they knew the "BODY OF BENJAMIN" was not going to be produced, so they instead attempt to assume that regardless of what Jesus claimed, his crucifixion and resurrection is a divorce (this is obviously a wrong position, but lets view it anyway):

LUKE 20:29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
LUKE 20:30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
LUKE 20:31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
LUKE 20:32 Last of all the woman died also.
LUKE 20:33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

3 Days of Darkness of Revelation. When the "3 Days of Darkness" of revelation is completed the 7th SEAL is opened. When the 7th SEAL is opened, the Divorce under Moses as the Antichrist is completed for 150 Days. ...................... They claimed that even though Jesus rejected the notion of divorce by reason of his crucifixion and resurrection, if "3 Days of Darkness", had elapsed the language of the gospel would be completed, and because Moses did not give seed, and Christ did not give seed, then God would allow mankind to take seed from the earth. This is clearly an invalid argument, the skies went dark for about 3 hours if we follow the gospel, that is no where near 3 Days of Darkness. ..................... We've stated a parable of Jesus being in the tomb for about 1 day was completed, the gospel does not say 1 day of darkness happened, it only says 3 hours of darkness happened.

(So you know where mass suicide by multiple acts of murder against the Antichrist, with or without some reasons or cause is popular, and why the gospel says in so many ways, the blindness of Jonah is revisited with Moses until the 12,000 Days of his Life Span of Revelation or about 30 years (Luke 3:23) are completed) (nightly walks to be resumed after second visit to the arrott terminal this week in the City of Philadelphia since the gospel names this as one of the churches).

Stripe
July 20th, 2015, 12:54 AM
The Short Answer is no.

Super.

What was the question?

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 04:00 AM
I know how your reading of it goes and I know what your point was, which is why I brought it up;

[quote]you are insinuating that Yeshua is somehow disqualified to be a Rabbi if he was not married, and I see now that you have insinuated that sentiment again so I need not quote the entirety of your previous post on that matter.

I am insinuating nothing. I know that to get married in Judaism is a commandment and that to be a Rabbi, one must be married. Not only in the First Century but also today. A Rabbi was akin to a Bishop and Paul himself of all men stated that he must be the husband of one wife. (I Tim. 3:2)


However you have still not shown me any writings outside of your own words that teach what you are asserting.

Read the Talmud. It was written from 200 BCE and finished in 200 ACE. A Rabbi could not be a Rabbi as a single man.


Every man is not commanded to get married. Marriage is ordained of God but that does not require every man to get married before he can teach. It may well have been customary but what you have tried to assert was not the teaching in first century Judaism, (unless you can come up with some sources).

The Talmud is an extra-Biblical source. What do you want, that I invent testimonies which is not in the Scriptures? I do not get where you are coming to or from.


As I said, I have my sources in the Apostolic writings, and even Paul having been a Pharisee of Pharisees, fully trained up in Torah, makes no mention of what you have asserted. And even if you can come up with something from Talmud those are compiled after the time of Yeshua.

Paul was never a Pharisee. He was a psychopath liar. The Sect of the Pharisees would never allow a Hellenistic Jew to join their Sect. Paul was never fully trained in the Torah if you compare Gal. 3:16 with Gen. 12:7. Even about the Talmud you are not aware of when it was compiled. How can we discuss it?

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 04:04 AM
“Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.”
John‬ 11:5‬ NKJV‬‬
http://bible.com/114/jhn.11.5.nkjv

What are you implying, that Jesus was of the "Casa Nova" kind?

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 04:07 AM
0-100 AD. And the Gospels were written when?

What is your question or what would you like discuss from 0-100 ACE?

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 04:21 AM
John 19:25-27 Modern English Version (MEV)

25 But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time, this disciple took her to his own home.

John was not on the Calvary at the time of Jesus' crucifixion for two reasons: First, because when Jesus was arrested in the Gethsemane "ALL" of his disciples forsook him and fled away. (Mark 14:50) The other reason is that according to Roman policy, for security purposes, none of the disciples of a crucified could approach the area of crucifixion. Besides, Jewish decorum would not allow for Jesus to commend his mother to a male disciple. So, he commended his mother to her own daughter-in-law which was Mary Magdalene. This had a home and could take care of Jesus' mother. John didn't even have a home of his own as he used to live with Peter. John was interpolated into the Calvary by the Fathers of the Church who meant to prevent Jesus from being identified as the legal husband of Mary Magdalene. That's all.

daqq
July 20th, 2015, 10:01 AM
I know how your reading of it goes and I know what your point was, which is why I brought it up;



I am insinuating nothing. I know that to get married in Judaism is a commandment and that to be a Rabbi, one must be married. Not only in the First Century but also today. A Rabbi was akin to a Bishop and Paul himself of all men stated that he must be the husband of one wife. (I Tim. 3:2)



Read the Talmud. It was written from 200 BCE and finished in 200 ACE. A Rabbi could not be a Rabbi as a single man.



The Talmud is an extra-Biblical source. What do you want, that I invent testimonies which is not in the Scriptures? I do not get where you are coming to or from.



Paul was never a Pharisee. He was a psychopath liar. The Sect of the Pharisees would never allow a Hellenistic Jew to join their Sect. Paul was never fully trained in the Torah if you compare Gal. 3:16 with Gen. 12:7. Even about the Talmud you are not aware of when it was compiled. How can we discuss it?

You are making things up as you go and that is why you cannot provide sources, or links to sources, to support your assertions. The Jerusalem Talmud is the older as it predates the Babylonian by about 200 years. The best you can do is to come up with information stating that it began to be compiled around 70AD/CE, (not 200BCE as you claim). However, if indeed it was around 70CE then it is clearly biased against the newly forming Christian community and for obvious reasons. There is no teaching before the advent of Messiah Yeshua that said or says a man must absolutely be married to be a Rabbi. It may be tradition but Yeshua predates the tradition so the tradition obviously seeks to nullify the teachings of Yeshua by disqualifying him as a Rabbi after the fact. In other words you are a day late and a buck short. :)


Jerusalem Talmud
The Jerusalem Talmud (Hebrew: תַּלְמוּד יְרוּשָׁלְמִי, Talmud Yerushalmi, often Yerushalmi for short) is a collection of Rabbinic notes on the 2nd-century Jewish oral tradition know as the Mishnah. Talmud meanings "instruction", "learning."[citation needed] The Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the Land of Israel during the 4th-5th centuries CE, then divided between the Byzantine provinces of Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. The Jerusalem Talmud is also known as the Palestinian Talmud or Talmud de-Eretz Yisrael (Talmud of the Land of Israel). These latter names are considered more accurate by some because, while the work was certainly composed in "the West" (i.e. the Holy Land), it originates from the Galilee area rather than from Jerusalem.[1]

The Jerusalem Talmud predates its counterpart, the Babylonian Talmud (also known as the Talmud Bavli), by about 200 years and is written in both Hebrew and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. It includes the core component, the Mishna, finalized by Rabbi Judah the Prince (c. 200 CE) along with the written discussions of generations of rabbis in the Land of Israel (primarily in the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea) which was compiled c. 350-400 CE into a series of books that became the Gemara (גמרא; from gamar: Hebrew "[to] complete"; Aramaic "[to] study"). The Gemara, when combined with the Mishnah, constitutes the Talmud.

There are two recensions of the Gemara, one compiled by the scholars of the Land of Israel and the other by those of Babylonia (primarily in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita, completed c. 500 CE). The Babylonian Talmud is often seen as more authoritative and is studied much more than the Jerusalem Talmud. In general, the terms "Gemara" or "Talmud," without further qualification, refer to the Babylonian recension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Talmud

:sheep:

Ben Masada
July 20th, 2015, 10:11 AM
You are making things up as you go and that is why you cannot provide sources, or links to sources, to support your assertions. The Jerusalem Talmud is the older as it predates the Babylonian by about 200 years. The best you can do is to come up with information stating that it began to be compiled around 70AD/CE, (not 200BCE as you claim). However, if indeed it was around 70CE then it is clearly biased against the newly forming Christian community and for obvious reasons. There is no teaching before the advent of Messiah Yeshua that said or says a man must absolutely be married to be a Rabbi. It may be tradition but Yeshua predates the tradition so the tradition obviously seeks to nullify the teachings of Yeshua by disqualifying him as a Rabbi after the fact. In other words you are a day late and a buck short. :)

:sheep:

You are not serious at all. All that you are after is to make people waste their time because you have nothing to say for a reply to a post which is not according to your Christian preconceived notions.

Dan Emanuel
July 20th, 2015, 10:19 AM
No bias!....Yes.
Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


Daniel

daqq
July 20th, 2015, 10:39 AM
You are not serious at all. All that you are after is to make people waste their time because you have nothing to say for a reply to a post which is not according to your Christian preconceived notions.

Quite serious, and you have nothing to back up your assertions, as has been made perfectly clear. Likewise those who compiled the Talmud were for the most part Khazars. What you read in Talmud are nothing more than a "select" group of Khazar Rabbis sitting around trying to understand Torah, (and they never succeeded). And from that same select group later also came forth the Masoretic-Khazar Text between 700AD/CE and 1000AD/CE. And as was said to you before: it has many errors and many of them are blatant and obviously intentional. :Plain:

:sheep:

Bright Raven
July 20th, 2015, 01:26 PM
John was not on the Calvary at the time of Jesus' crucifixion for two reasons: First, because when Jesus was arrested in the Gethsemane "ALL" of his disciples forsook him and fled away. (Mark 14:50) The other reason is that according to Roman policy, for security purposes, none of the disciples of a crucified could approach the area of crucifixion. Besides, Jewish decorum would not allow for Jesus to commend his mother to a male disciple. So, he commended his mother to her own daughter-in-law which was Mary Magdalene. This had a home and could take care of Jesus' mother. John didn't even have a home of his own as he used to live with Peter. John was interpolated into the Calvary by the Fathers of the Church who meant to prevent Jesus from being identified as the legal husband of Mary Magdalene. That's all.

Don't read or comprehend very well do you. Let's try it again.

John 19:25-27 Modern English Version (MEV)

25 But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time, this disciple took her to his own home.

nonanomanon
July 21st, 2015, 01:41 AM
Super.

What was the question?


I know how your reading of it goes and I know what your point was, which is why I brought it up;

I am insinuating nothing. I know that to get married in Judaism is a commandment and that to be a Rabbi, one must be married. Not only in the First Century but also today. A Rabbi was akin to a Bishop and Paul himself of all men stated that he must be the husband of one wife. (I Tim. 3:2)

?

A Question about Marriage ............ on second thought, this is a question about the "Gospel's declaration of its Marriage, being singular".

GENESIS 48:14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid [it] upon Ephraim's head, who [was] the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh [was] the firstborn.

(Manasseh was the "Head of the Priesthood", until the title was passed to the Levites under Moses) ......... Ephraim on the other hand is identified as the Tribe that God will use to record his Gospel, Jesus as the Lamb identifies Ephraim (the hebrew's genetic line) as his bride. (God did not name Manasseh, because it would indicate the title could transfer between tribes, like the Head of the Priesthood title transfers (since Manasseh held it at that time). The Tribe that is the Bride of Christ, was Ephraim and this title didn't transfer. Were not talking about the body of believers as the Bride of Christ, which are of the "Remnant of Isreal" ............. we are instead talking about a Tribe Christ called his bride, for the giving of the law.

When the Gospel was near its completion, which was given to the Jews, relative to his crucifixion. Jesus put on his Crown, "The King of the Jews", indicating that the Marriage between the Tribe of Ephraim as the bride had not been broken, there was no divorce. ......................... At the time of the Crucifixion, relative to that, (Aaron originally recieving the title of Head of the Priesthood when Peter was baptized as an apostle), Judah had took the "Head of the Tribes", and Aaron had took, "Head of the Priesthood" (Jesus divided their position because of sin). ....................... When this happened, Jesus was not declaring that he was going to Marry the Tribe of Judah, or the Tribe of Aaron, as the Bride that is allowed to recorded or keep the Law of the Gospel. The Gospel was simply going to be finished, and Ephraim would not be used as a bride anymore, Ephraim would not be divorced, nor would another Tribe be chosen.

A Few Thousands Years Ago .............

God allowed the "5 Foolish Virgins", at that time a picture of Samaria to take the "5 Wise Virgins" to marry, when God allowed Babylon to take the Hebrews from Jerusalem and destroy Solomon's Temple. God did this only to chastise the sin of the Hebrews. Babylon was not allowed to record the gospel, or to give Ephraim a gospel and replace Christ as the husband. ..................... 1 Chronicles 28:8-9 .................... Oded declares that the "5 Wise and 5 Foolish" virgins can remarry, that is the "5 Foolish Virgins can Marry Judah", instead of Ephraim. ........................ Now if Jesus was divorcing Ephraim as his bride, then, they thought that Judah could marry Ephraim and give them their law to carry, like God had done with Babylon when the temple of Solomon was destroyed. ........................ The Romans were going to destroy the Temple once again to signify their marriage ......................... that is an impossibility on two accounts:

1. 5 Foolish Virgins are only a reference to Genetic Dan, not Ephraim.
2. The Gospel allowed Samaria to take Ephraim as a bride temporarily, this was not going to be repeated. 1 Chronicles 28:8-9 ............... has language that describes a marriage between "samaria and judah", as the outcome when this marriage between "5 Foolish and 5 Wise" virgins happen according to Matthew 25 at the end of time, when the "Body of Benjamin is revealed", this is a marriage by fire. (more details in the "Clarence Larkin Chart" study).

Unfortunately, Judah was overzealous in branding Jesus as a criminal, and then the Church became overzealous in attempting to ensure that Jesus was crucified, then and finally the romans and the "new testament church, established under Peter as the first pope, under the tribe of Aaron became overzealous. They have remained in sin since, and now we should see the conclusion of this suicidal behavior very soon.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 02:55 AM
Don't read or comprehend very well do you. Let's try it again.

John 19:25-27 Modern English Version (MEV)

25 But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time, this disciple took her to his own home.

You seem not to understand English or the English I use in my posts. What Jesus meant by saying, "Woman, here is your son" was a kind of apology for what he, Jesus had carelessly reduced himself to that condition of a disappointment to his parents. It was something akin to "Mother, I am sorry for having disappointed you by letting this happen to your own son. Please, forgive me as I know how this is killing you." Then Jesus said to the disciple whom he loved "Mary, there is you mother." And, in fact, Jesus' mother was Mary Magdalene's mother-in-law who took Mary along to her home and took care of her for the rest of her life. It could not be John because he was not Jesus' beloved, he was not there for obvious reasons, being one of them that John had fled away when Jesus had been arrested. (Mat. 26:56; Mark 14:50) And because of Jewish decorum, a Jew would never commend his mother to a male disciple.

Ben Masada
July 21st, 2015, 03:07 AM
?

A Question about Marriage ............ on second thought, this is a question about the "Gospel's declaration of its Marriage, being singular".

GENESIS 48:14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid [it] upon Ephraim's head, who [was] the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh [was] the firstborn.

(Manasseh was the "Head of the Priesthood", until the title was passed to the Levites under Moses) ......... Ephraim on the other hand is identified as the Tribe that God will use to record his Gospel, Jesus as the Lamb identifies Ephraim (the hebrew's genetic line) as his bride. (God did not name Manasseh, because it would indicate the title could transfer between tribes, like the Head of the Priesthood title transfers (since Manasseh held it at that time). The Tribe that is the Bride of Christ, was Ephraim and this title didn't transfer. Were not talking about the body of believers as the Bride of Christ, which are of the "Remnant of Isreal" ............. we are instead talking about a Tribe Christ called his bride, for the giving of the law.

When the Gospel was near its completion, which was given to the Jews, relative to his crucifixion. Jesus put on his Crown, "The King of the Jews", indicating that the Marriage between the Tribe of Ephraim as the bride had not been broken, there was no divorce. ......................... At the time of the Crucifixion, relative to that, (Aaron originally recieving the title of Head of the Priesthood when Peter was baptized as an apostle), Judah had took the "Head of the Tribes", and Aaron had took, "Head of the Priesthood" (Jesus divided their position because of sin). ....................... When this happened, Jesus was not declaring that he was going to Marry the Tribe of Judah, or the Tribe of Aaron, as the Bride that is allowed to recorded or keep the Law of the Gospel. The Gospel was simply going to be finished, and Ephraim would not be used as a bride anymore, Ephraim would not be divorced, nor would another Tribe be chosen.

A Few Thousands Years Ago .............

God allowed the "5 Foolish Virgins", at that time a picture of Samaria to take the "5 Wise Virgins" to marry, when God allowed Babylon to take the Hebrews from Jerusalem and destroy Solomon's Temple. God did this only to chastise the sin of the Hebrews. Babylon was not allowed to record the gospel, or to give Ephraim a gospel and replace Christ as the husband. ..................... 1 Chronicles 28:8-9 .................... Oded declares that the "5 Wise and 5 Foolish" virgins can remarry, that is the "5 Foolish Virgins can Marry Judah", instead of Ephraim. ........................ Now if Jesus was divorcing Ephraim as his bride, then, they thought that Judah could marry Ephraim and give them their law to carry, like God had done with Babylon when the temple of Solomon was destroyed. ........................ The Romans were going to destroy the Temple once again to signify their marriage ......................... that is an impossibility on two accounts:

1. 5 Foolish Virgins are only a reference to Genetic Dan, not Ephraim.
2. The Gospel allowed Samaria to take Ephraim as a bride temporarily, this was not going to be repeated. 1 Chronicles 28:8-9 ............... has language that describes a marriage between "samaria and judah", as the outcome when this marriage between "5 Foolish and 5 Wise" virgins happen according to Matthew 25 at the end of time, when the "Body of Benjamin is revealed", this is a marriage by fire. (more details in the "Clarence Larkin Chart" study).

Unfortunately, Judah was overzealous in branding Jesus as a criminal, and then the Church became overzealous in attempting to ensure that Jesus was crucified, then and finally the romans and the "new testament church, established under Peter as the first pope, under the tribe of Aaron became overzealous. They have remained in sin since, and now we should see the conclusion of this suicidal behavior very soon.

And the novel came to an end. What do you think I am, a Christian whose statements of his novel don't need to be evidenced with a quote? I am Jewish Nonanonmanon, If I quote all my assertions I expect you do the same. Therefore, that's what I found this post to be, a novel without any truth to it.

nonanomanon
July 21st, 2015, 12:59 PM
And the novel came to an end. What do you think I am, a Christian whose statements of his novel don't need to be evidenced with a quote? I am Jewish Nonanonmanon, If I quote all my assertions I expect you do the same. Therefore, that's what I found this post to be, a novel without any truth to it.

HEBREWS 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
HEBREWS 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
HEBREWS 9:28 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.

The statement is also true for the Hebrews, they were taken into Babylonian Custody after the temple of Solomon was destroyed, and this was a picture of divorce as a form of chastisment ............ God only intended this to happen once as hebrews 9:28 indicates, so that the hebrews could be an example of rebirth for the nations. (Zion the Separatist Inheritance* of Judah, was chosen in the name of the Jews, the unity of "Joseph the Lion that redeems Judah (Rev. 5:5", was chosen among Judah by Ephraim according to Ezekiel 36:16-19)

LAMENTATIONS 2:17 The LORD hath done [that] which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused [thine] enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries.
LAMENTATIONS 2:18 Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease.

David's Chosen Tribe was Ephraim (1 Kings 11:13 Genetic Jews) ........ The Jewish people would be driven from all the nations, but they would not be eliminated, the "Apple of thine Eye would not Cease". They would be used by God to identify the "Heart of Judah or Zion", Judah's Separatist Inheritance* of a New Planet of their own. (By the time the Holocaust was completed, the Global Jewish population began to overwhelm the United States, and since that time, the Jewish Population outside of the USA is very insignificant) (The "day and night to forever" of Lamentations 2:18, restates Jeremiah 33:20-21, which says "Benjamin and Joseph" are separated by the "Key of David" when the "3 Days of Darkness begins", completing the assignment of the USA as the "Heart of Judah", because they have captured the "Apple of David, which was Ephraim", when the Judgment of Judah for 150 days begins to be done in less then 40 days from now).

All Human Life will be Terminated outside the "Heart of Judah, which is Zion", this is to be done soon

ISAIAH 4:3 And it shall come to pass, [that he that is] left in Zion, and [he that] remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, [even] every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:
ISAIAH 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

Only Human Life in the "Heart of Judah which is Zion", is allowed to life when Star Wormwood begins for 153 Days (Isiah 4:3). All human life must be terminated outside the heart of Judah, all nations must eliminated (Isiah 4:4). (that which is called Zion, has captured Ephraim) This is to be done soon. The Antichrist, we don't know who he is, intends to exterminate millions with a tsunami, but he needs a certain level of force to be done to him, in order for this to be done.

Significant of Progressive Diaspora (driving out from the nations) of the Hebrews

Recapping. God never divorced Ephraim, he just stopped using them to write the Gospel because it was completed. God would go on to use Ephraim to establish "Zion". .................. After Jesus was Crucified, the Early Church attempted to Prove that: 1) God divorced Ephraim, and 2) Ephraim became a bastard child because it could not receive the law of the New Testament Church. ....................... The Tribe of Aaron lead the Execution of Peter, as the Head of the Priesthood, entrusted with the New Testament Church, and Aaron later lead continual diaspora of the Hebrews. This is apart of Aaron's "War with God", that has continued since Aaron fell into the Assyrian sin of Worshiping the Golden Calf. God does ask for Repentance for Aaron, but they are to be terminated soon. .......................... So you can see how profitable, the enemies of the gospel have attempted to make the gospel invalidated by the elimination of the Hebrews ... this was apart of God's program to establish the "Heart of Judah or Zion", as apart of the process of faith. In less then 40 Days, all human life outside of the usa will cease, and all human life inside the usa not ascribed to judah will also cease.

Bright Raven
July 21st, 2015, 01:04 PM
You seem not to understand English or the English I use in my posts. What Jesus meant by saying, "Woman, here is your son" was a kind of apology for what he, Jesus had carelessly reduced himself to that condition of a disappointment to his parents. It was something akin to "Mother, I am sorry for having disappointed you by letting this happen to your own son. Please, forgive me as I know how this is killing you." Then Jesus said to the disciple whom he loved "Mary, there is you mother." And, in fact, Jesus' mother was Mary Magdalene's mother-in-law who took Mary along to her home and took care of her for the rest of her life. It could not be John because he was not Jesus' beloved, he was not there for obvious reasons, being one of them that John had fled away when Jesus had been arrested. (Mat. 26:56; Mark 14:50) And because of Jewish decorum, a Jew would never commend his mother to a male disciple.
He said to Mary; Woman, here is your son. End of story.

nonanomanon
July 22nd, 2015, 02:33 AM
You seem not to understand English or the English I use in my posts. What Jesus meant by saying, "Woman, here is your son" was a kind of apology for what he, Jesus had carelessly reduced himself to that condition of a disappointment to his parents. It was something akin to "Mother, I am sorry for having disappointed you by letting this happen to your own son. Please, forgive me as I know how this is killing you." Then Jesus said to the disciple whom he loved "Mary, there is you mother." And, in fact, Jesus' mother was Mary Magdalene's mother-in-law who took Mary along to her home and took care of her for the rest of her life. It could not be John because he was not Jesus' beloved, he was not there for obvious reasons, being one of them that John had fled away when Jesus had been arrested. (Mat. 26:56; Mark 14:50) And because of Jewish decorum, a Jew would never commend his mother to a male disciple.

(Cough, Cough, Cough) Maybe thats a little too much cardinal sin for the gospel. Jesus baptized the disciples so they could cast out evils spirits from the church. Jesus was going to complete his judgment, by the time that was finished, the church would of been full of evil spirits. ................. Jesus's mother was a picture of the church, Jesus told the church to receive instruction from the "son of man", and the Apostle John, attempted to do that so the suicidal campaign that began with Judas, did not continue with the Church, and ultimately with Judah and Aaron. ................... History says the Apostle John ended up in isolation, and he also finished the book of revelation ... this would not of been possible with those people living, they had to be deceased. We have more detail about these executions following Paul's deliverance from these murder campaigns, etc.

Regarding the inapplicability of Divorce from the Gospel's Program

Lets begin with the Prophet Oded, 2 Chronicles 28:9, God says it was not time to Marry Judah, so the "5 Foolish Virgins" were originally given Ephraim/Hebrews, and this was not to last. This says exactly what Hebrews 9:24-28 says, the Hebrews were taken in marriage by the "5 Foolish Virgins", but it could not happen anymore. Thus leaving a portion of Judah as a picture of the "5 Wise Virgins" the ability to marry a portion of the "5 Foolish Virgins (a portion of Dan). Yes, true but lets try something else:

Oded = Obediah

OBADIAH 1:5 If thieves came to thee, if robbers by night, (how art thou cut off!) would they not have stolen till they had enough? if the grapegatherers came to thee, would they not leave [some] grapes?

Perhaps the Prophet Oded is the author of the Book of Obediah, it says Jesus was taken in the Night in the Garden of Gethsemane to satisfy their divorce. This completes the language from 2 Chronicles 28:9, which made the statement that Judah wanted to marry Ephraim, since they could not marry when Samaria (a portion of Dan), was allowed to take Ephraim to marriage, in the days Solomon's Temple was destroyed.

Its not that the Book of Obediah was written in the New Testament era, its that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of their blindness, which would satisfy the language of condemnation the gospels uses for isolation the Hebrews to the "Heart of Judah" to identify "Zion", their Separatist Inheritance*.

The Cardinal conclusion is that Jesus said to the loved disciple "Mother take your Son", or Mother rap* your Son", since Lot was rap*d by his daughters. That is not what Jesus implied, the New Testament Church is a body of sin and death, not spiritual renewal, generally speaking. God allowed them to sin to a degree then restrained their sin, this can also result in the loss of life. We don't see the loss of life promoted, because it simply interferes with their ability to continue in their sin.

Ben Masada
July 22nd, 2015, 03:58 AM
HEBREWS 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
HEBREWS 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
HEBREWS 9:28 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.

The statement is also true for the Hebrews, they were taken into Babylonian Custody after the temple of Solomon was destroyed, and this was a picture of divorce as a form of chastisment ............ God only intended this to happen once as hebrews 9:28 indicates, so that the hebrews could be an example of rebirth for the nations. (Zion the Separatist Inheritance* of Judah, was chosen in the name of the Jews, the unity of "Joseph the Lion that redeems Judah (Rev. 5:5", was chosen among Judah by Ephraim according to Ezekiel 36:16-19)

LAMENTATIONS 2:17 The LORD hath done [that] which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused [thine] enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries.
LAMENTATIONS 2:18 Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease.

David's Chosen Tribe was Ephraim (1 Kings 11:13 Genetic Jews) ........ The Jewish people would be driven from all the nations, but they would not be eliminated, the "Apple of thine Eye would not Cease". They would be used by God to identify the "Heart of Judah or Zion", Judah's Separatist Inheritance* of a New Planet of their own. (By the time the Holocaust was completed, the Global Jewish population began to overwhelm the United States, and since that time, the Jewish Population outside of the USA is very insignificant) (The "day and night to forever" of Lamentations 2:18, restates Jeremiah 33:20-21, which says "Benjamin and Joseph" are separated by the "Key of David" when the "3 Days of Darkness begins", completing the assignment of the USA as the "Heart of Judah", because they have captured the "Apple of David, which was Ephraim", when the Judgment of Judah for 150 days begins to be done in less then 40 days from now).

All Human Life will be Terminated outside the "Heart of Judah, which is Zion", this is to be done soon

ISAIAH 4:3 And it shall come to pass, [that he that is] left in Zion, and [he that] remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, [even] every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:
ISAIAH 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

Only Human Life in the "Heart of Judah which is Zion", is allowed to life when Star Wormwood begins for 153 Days (Isiah 4:3). All human life must be terminated outside the heart of Judah, all nations must eliminated (Isiah 4:4). (that which is called Zion, has captured Ephraim) This is to be done soon. The Antichrist, we don't know who he is, intends to exterminate millions with a tsunami, but he needs a certain level of force to be done to him, in order for this to be done.

Significant of Progressive Diaspora (driving out from the nations) of the Hebrews

Recapping. God never divorced Ephraim, he just stopped using them to write the Gospel because it was completed. God would go on to use Ephraim to establish "Zion". .................. After Jesus was Crucified, the Early Church attempted to Prove that: 1) God divorced Ephraim, and 2) Ephraim became a bastard child because it could not receive the law of the New Testament Church. ....................... The Tribe of Aaron lead the Execution of Peter, as the Head of the Priesthood, entrusted with the New Testament Church, and Aaron later lead continual diaspora of the Hebrews. This is apart of Aaron's "War with God", that has continued since Aaron fell into the Assyrian sin of Worshiping the Golden Calf. God does ask for Repentance for Aaron, but they are to be terminated soon. .......................... So you can see how profitable, the enemies of the gospel have attempted to make the gospel invalidated by the elimination of the Hebrews ... this was apart of God's program to establish the "Heart of Judah or Zion", as apart of the process of faith. In less then 40 Days, all human life outside of the usa will cease, and all human life inside the usa not ascribed to judah will also cease.

So, God never divorced Ephraim, Right? Where is Ephraim today? What has remained as a People before the Lord forever is Judah, the Tribe HaShem promised to King David to remain as a lamp in Jerusalem, the city the Lord has chosen to put His name. (I Kings 11:36