168 replies to this topic

[laver]

docyabut2, on 29 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

The women to be stoned or Mary Magdalene`s marital status was`nt never given. Mary Magdalene was qouted as the women Jesus had saved from the seven deady sins. Do you think Jesus would have married a women he had saved from those sins?

I did not think that Mary of Magdala was linked to the 7 deadly sins? She was labelled as a prostitute many years ago but I believe that this has now been withdrawn by the authorities. She is clearly lnked to the number 7 however 'the' number of the book of Revelations.

[docyabut2]

laver, on 29 January 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

I did not think that Mary of Magdala was linked to the 7 deadly sins? She was labelled as a prostitute many years ago but I believe that this has now been withdrawn by the authorities. She is clearly lnked to the number 7 however 'the' number of the book of Revelations.

Mark 16 -9 Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.


http://www.bluelette...6&v=1&t=KJV#top

[Paranoid Android]

docyabut2, on 29 January 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

Mark 16 -9 Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.


http://www.bluelette...6&v=1&t=KJV#top

Seven "devils".  That is supposed to refer to seven deadly sins????  Just curious, but from where do we even get the idea of "seven deadly sins".  I thought all sins were deadly?  All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and the punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23).  The idea of seven deadly sins comes from history and tradition, not from the Bible.

[docyabut2]

Written by Solomon the Jewish King.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, 19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

[sslama]

Ben Masada, on 28 January 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

Well my friend, I cannot accept the opinions and views of the other side just to show good will interfaith. If something shocks with my understanding we have got to discuss further. If I disagree it is not just for the sake of disagreement. I give the proper quote to prove my assertions. Jesus was a Jewish man. To use him to promote Christianity, you must provide a reason without the shadow of a
contradiction. That's simple Logic.

Ben

Hi Ben, please allow me to try.....

Jesus was born Jewish, he was brought up a Jewish, and continues to be Jewish …therefore Christianity and the Church is a fulfillment of Judism.  It says in the book of Ephesians that through Jesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles become one in body of Christ which is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The word Catholic simply means universal.

Around 100 AD the reference to the Church as being Catholic is in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch.  And further back than that in the ‘Book of Acts’ you can see the progression.  Originally the church was a sect of Judaism and later followers of Jesus was called Christian which meant “little Christs”.

My point is that from the very beginning the Church wasn’t one …. It was many different Churches (just like today) and they all met together in councils to sort things out.

It also states in the book of Acts that the Church decided how to handle non-jews entering the church….they met in a Council in Jerusalem and the Apostles, together with Peter, decided what to do.  The Apostles were the foundation of the Church and the Catholic Church today is the same Church….Peter’s successor, which is the Pope... they can trace their lineage back to 12 Apostles. No other church can make this claim.  The other churches (and there are so many different ones today) …they all broke away from the Catholic Church.

Edited by sslama, 29 January 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Tell me JK, do you think I would try to refute something that does not exist? Obviously not. And I have never said that it does not exist. I could never create a branch of Christianity as a Jew. I am not a Christian. And I would never create any more of Christianity. One is just more than enough. We would not be able to handle even a single extra one. Christianity is not based on the OT. The OT for Christians exists only as a shadow which is supposed to disappear. (Heb. 7:12,22) That's where my front skirmish stands.

Ben

Those verses in Hebrews refer to the old covenant, not to the entire collection of Old Testament writings.  The OT is still a treasure for Christianity.  Christian ministry is found symbolized in the Tabernacle of Moses.  The story of Esther is an amazing tale of God's provision; it's one of my favorite sermons to preach.  The Psalms and the Proverbs as as appropriate today as they were then.

[minera]

Ben Masada, on 28 January 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

Minera, I agree with you up to the point: "Whether Jesus was married or not should not make any difference in who he was and what he represented." Perhaps not to you but to the the fact that he was a Jewish man, it makes a lot of a difference. A Jewish child, from age 13 or "Bar Mitzvah" he starts being mentally prepared for marriage, according to the first commandment to leave his mother and father and join a wife to be with her one flesh. (Gen. 2:24) Then, we have Jesus in Mat. 5:17-19 declaring that he came to fulfill all the laws. Obviously, he must have fulfilled the very first commandment too. Then, marriage only enhances a man's credibility, especially if he was a Jewish teacher or Rabbi whose professions one could not perform as a single man. If indeed he was not married,
it must either be stated in the text that he was NOT married or admitted that there is a contradiction.

Ben

Ben I fully agree with you. Especially the credibility part. One cannot give advice about family and marriage if they have not experienced it. It has always bothered me when Catholic priests would be telling young couples and married families how to act or do things etc. Unfortunately there is no statement or contradiction as to whether Jesus was married or not in any texts. At least not in the Catholic or Christian versions. Seems to be a volatile topic among those religions.

[docyabut2]

Matthew- Jesus `s reasons not to marry  

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].


Surely Jesus did not marry, for he says he must get on with his father`s work, for the kingdom of heaven's sake

Edited by docyabut2, 31 January 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[laver]

minera, on 30 January 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

Ben I fully agree with you. Especially the credibility part. One cannot give advice about family and marriage if they have not experienced it. It has always bothered me when Catholic priests would be telling young couples and married families how to act or do things etc. Unfortunately there is no statement or contradiction as to whether Jesus was married or not in any texts. At least not in the Catholic or Christian versions. Seems to be a volatile topic among those religions.

Not only Catholic priests... it is called recruitment !

[Ben Masada]

docyabut2, on 29 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

The women to be stoned or Mary Magdalene`s marital status was`nt never given. Mary Magdalene was qouted as the women Jesus had saved from the seven deady sins. Do you think Jesus would have married a women he had saved from those sins?

IMHO, the seven "demons" Jesus had to exorcize from Mary Magdalene was a simile for the struggle it took him to get Mary Magdalene
to abandon her style of life in the city of Magdala. And Mary Magdalene was not quoted only as the women Jesus had saved. She is quoted in a few places even up to his last moments on the cross, let alone after he was dead, as she tried to remove Jesus from the tomb if she had found him in. (Joh  20:15)

Ben

[Ben Masada]

sslama, on 29 January 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Hi Ben, please allow me to try.....

Jesus was born Jewish, he was brought up a Jewish, and continues to be Jewish …therefore Christianity and the Church is a fulfillment of Judism.  It says in the book of Ephesians that through Jesus Christ both Jews and Gentiles become one in body of Christ which is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The word Catholic simply means universal.

Around 100 AD the reference to the Church as being Catholic is in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch.  And further back than that in the ‘Book of Acts’ you can see the progression.  Originally the church was a sect of Judaism and later followers of Jesus was called Christian which meant “little Christs”.

My point is that from the very beginning the Church wasn’t one …. It was many different Churches (just like today) and they all met together in councils to sort things out.

It also states in the book of Acts that the Church decided how to handle non-jews entering the church….they met in a Council in Jerusalem and the Apostles, together with Peter, decided what to do.  The Apostles were the foundation of the Church and the Catholic Church today is the same Church….Peter’s successor, which is the Pope... they can trace their lineage back to 12 Apostles. No other church can make this claim.  The other churches (and there are so many different ones today) …they all broke away from the Catholic Church.

Sslama, hi! Sorry but I can't agree with you that Christianity and the Church is the fulfillment of Judaism. To say so, is simply to promote the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. If Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, what does it make of Judaism, something fulfilled, done, just a shadow of Christianity? That's what Replacement Theology means. And Replacement Theology IOW, means
vandalism of Judaism by Christianity.

Christianity was never a sect of Judaism. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Sect of the Nazarenes founded by the Apostles on behalf of Jesus. Jesus himself never had a Christian for a follower. When they rose with Paul in Antioch, Jesus had been gone for about 35 years. (Acts 11:26)

Once Paul did have to go to Jerusalem to solve a problem for the Church but because some of the Nazarenes sent from Judea were causing dissentions throughout the churches that Paul had overturned from Nazarene synagogues into Christian churches. (Acts 15:1,2)

Ben

[Ben Masada]

J. K., on 29 January 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

Those verses in Hebrews refer to the old covenant, not to the entire collection of Old Testament writings.  The OT is still a treasure for Christianity.  Christian ministry is found symbolized in the Tabernacle of Moses.  The story of Esther is an amazing tale of God's provision; it's one of my favorite sermons to preach.  The Psalms and the Proverbs as as appropriate today as they were then.

Beautiful! I am flattered. But what about Hebrews 7:12,22? Paul made it very sure that the Law changed and a better covenant guaranteed by Jesus replaced the Jewish covenant. What does it mean that Judaism has been replaced?

Ben

[Ben Masada]

minera, on 30 January 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

Ben I fully agree with you. Especially the credibility part. One cannot give advice about family and marriage if they have not experienced it. It has always bothered me when Catholic priests would be telling young couples and married families how to act or do things etc. Unfortunately there is no statement or contradiction as to whether Jesus was married or not in any texts. At least not in the Catholic or Christian versions. Seems to be a volatile topic among those religions.

The lack of a quote about Jesus being married is understood because it was a commong thing for a youngman to be married. The opposite is true that, if Jesus was not married, it would most definitely be down on the pages of the NT that he was NOT married.

Ben

[docyabut2]

If Jesus had been married, wouldn't Paul have mentioned it? Since Peter, the other apostles, and Jesus’ half-brothers had wives, Paul says he could also marry if he wanted to (1 Corinthians 9:5). If Jesus had been married, Paul would probably have named him in this list of married men before Peter and the others.

[J. K.]

Ben Masada, on 31 January 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Beautiful! I am flattered. But what about Hebrews 7:12,22? Paul made it very sure that the Law changed and a better covenant guaranteed by Jesus replaced the Jewish covenant. What does it mean that Judaism has been replaced?

Ben

I believe the "law" in verse 7 refers to the guideline that the priests had to come from the tribe of Levi.  For Jesus to become the High Priest, being from Judah, a change in the law was necessary.

The new covenant acknowledges the old covenant by stating that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest, the last one that would ever be needed.  The new covenant does not replace the old covenant; instead, it completes the old covenant.  That which the old covenant required - perfect living - was accomplished by Jesus and applied to all who believe.