Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

The Wedding of Jesus

209 posts in this topic

Ben, if the wedding at Cana was Jesus`s, the original gospels writers would have said the wedding was his, and why mention a wedding Jesus went to in the Bible canons it was meant to be covered up .I just don`t believe there is any real evidence that Jesus was married.

Such a gospel could have never gotten into the Christian canon about a man who was part of the Trinity and married with children on earth. Of course it had to be erased or Christianity would never have got off the floor. It would remain no more than a Greek cult of mythologies. If you just can't believe that Jesus could have been married, is there any statement to the effect that he was NOT married? No, there is not. Do you know why? Because to get married was a serious commandment. And there is nothing more important to a Jew than to get married. (Gen.2:24) For the Jewish People to get married or to be a married man is taken for granted. Gosh! If Jesus had not been married we would have more than several assersions to that effect. Oh! There is another choice in your favor: To admit that Jesus was not Jewish. Do it and the issue is solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in Matthew, Mark and Luke all say Jesus`s family of Mother, Brothers and Sisters came to see him, nothing is mention of a wife.The only thing mention in John at that meeting was the Jews knew his parents and him as the son of Mary and Joesph.

That's the point about pious forgery to make Christianity possible as a Divinely inspired religion. The cleasing had to be done before executing the canonization of the NT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point about pious forgery to make Christianity possible as a Divinely inspired religion. The cleasing had to be done before executing the canonization of the NT.

Come now Ben that is a load of BS, the same argument can easily (and without evidence) be thrown in the direction of the Old Testament, there is enough suspicion that it was tried and done at the end of the 1st century in Jabneh, in what is technically called the Council of Jahvneh. (Jamnia)

While evidence in relation to the closing of the Old Testament canon is wanting there is more than enough evidence of Jewish decision to alter certain aspects of Jewish teaching and traditions... especially concerning Jewish views on Binitarianism and a restructuring of Jewish views on anthropomorphism, which in Jewish views of the time were directly responsible for the rise of Christianity which posed a serious threat to the survival of Judaism as a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come now Ben that is a load of BS, the same argument can easily (and without evidence) be thrown in the direction of the Old Testament, there is enough suspicion that it was tried and done at the end of the 1st century in Jabneh, in what is technically called the Council of Jahvneh. (Jamnia)

While evidence in relation to the closing of the Old Testament canon is wanting there is more than enough evidence of Jewish decision to alter certain aspects of Jewish teaching and traditions... especially concerning Jewish views on Binitarianism and a restructuring of Jewish views on anthropomorphism, which in Jewish views of the time were directly responsible for the rise of Christianity which posed a serious threat to the survival of Judaism as a religion.

Hey Jorel, I do acknowledge changes and additions made just prior to the canonization of the Tanach. It does not matter to me even for a little as long as they were made by Jews. And I tell you even the name of the principal men involved in those changes: Ezra and Nehemiah. Especially Ezra according to Baruch de Spinoza. But than again you would probably ask, "why do you care about the changes made in the NT?" Because of the Christian intrusion into the Tanach with the intent to implement Replacement Theology. We have not used Christians to prepare the Tanach for canonization. Christianity have used Jews to effect their forgeries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jorel, I do acknowledge changes and additions made just prior to the canonization of the Tanach. It does not matter to me even for a little as long as they were made by Jews. And I tell you even the name of the principal men involved in those changes: Ezra and Nehemiah. Especially Ezra according to Baruch de Spinoza. But than again you would probably ask, "why do you care about the changes made in the NT?" Because of the Christian intrusion into the Tanach with the intent to implement Replacement Theology. We have not used Christians to prepare the Tanach for canonization. Christianity have used Jews to effect their forgeries.

Well I do not acknowledge changes to either the Tanakh or the New Testament. The New Testament letters were compiled into one book, but the books themselves were never altered to purposefully try to demonstrate something that was not already there.

I do not agree that either Ezra and Nehemiah altered the Tanakh, do you think the people would have stood for that? Do you think evidence of this would not be available?

No, what we have is different textual families that exist due to copying errors by scribes, over time these textual families differentiated in some sections of the Tanakh that no one knows what reading is the correct one. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped us a lot in this regard, giving us a clearer picture of what the original text was.

Replacement Theology is ignorance of the masses my friend, it just isn't there biblically, many have tried to instill hatred using this tool, but never was it biblical. The bible does not endorse the concept of replacement theology in any way, it actually says the opposite, it is the Christians who are grafted in to the vine from which Israel springs, the church did not replace Israel and the Jews, it is poor theology and based on one thing only, anti-Semitism.

Not even Paul ascribed to such beliefs even though you often try to show that he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we have no statement to the effect that the prophets throughout the Tanach were NOT married my answer to your question is that they were all married. And not because they were prophets or because Jesus was a Rabbi but because they were Jewish young men with the main aim or goal of all in Judaism which was to get married and father children. That was the common thing to do to build one's characher and prestige as a man in the society. To miss that would be embarrassing and immoral for lack of a better word, unless one was sick or retarded. To get married was a serious commandment, which still is. Now, think through the terrible disservice a Christian causes to Jesus by claiming he was not a married man.

I think that all of this comes from the impression that Jesus didn't intend to change Judaism. But Matthew and Mark both show that Jesus did not see Judaism as the savior of the Jews. Quite opposite, especially the rabbinical system.

Jerusalem was later destroyed and the Jews scattered to the ends of the earth while Christians inherited the entire Roman Empire without lifting a sword.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I do not acknowledge changes to either the Tanakh or the New Testament. The New Testament letters were compiled into one book, but the books themselves were never altered to purposefully try to demonstrate something that was not already there.

I do not agree that either Ezra and Nehemiah altered the Tanakh, do you think the people would have stood for that? Do you think evidence of this would not be available?

No, what we have is different textual families that exist due to copying errors by scribes, over time these textual families differentiated in some sections of the Tanakh that no one knows what reading is the correct one. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped us a lot in this regard, giving us a clearer picture of what the original text was.

Replacement Theology is ignorance of the masses my friend, it just isn't there biblically, many have tried to instill hatred using this tool, but never was it biblical. The bible does not endorse the concept of replacement theology in any way, it actually says the opposite, it is the Christians who are grafted in to the vine from which Israel springs, the church did not replace Israel and the Jews, it is poor theology and based on one thing only, anti-Semitism.

Not even Paul ascribed to such beliefs even though you often try to show that he did.

Jorel, we have been too long hammering on the subject of Replacement Theology and you almost willingly refuse to walk by sight. Do you know the meaning of walking by sight? It's when you see where you walk and know where you walk to. The opposite would be to walk by faith. To walk by faith is to walk with a guide and a cane. Paul said that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight. (2 Cor.5:7) And you are doing exactly as the "Doctor says."

Would you like me to give you an exegesis of verse-by-verse from Galatians 4:21-31 and the book of Hebrews? If you still won't admit the truth of Replacement Theology as a Pauline policy I'll rest my case. The whole book of Hebrews is a compendium on Replacement Theology. The only feedback I wish from you in case you decide to admit is that you understand that the NT is indeed a book about Replacement Theology but you prefer to adopt it as it is. You won't be the first. All Christians do it because they just can't avoid it. A Christian preacher can't open his or her mouth from a pulpit without preaching Replacement Theology. I have notticed that many times when I watch a TV Evangelist sermonizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that all of this comes from the impression that Jesus didn't intend to change Judaism. But Matthew and Mark both show that Jesus did not see Judaism as the savior of the Jews. Quite opposite, especially the rabbinical system.

Jerusalem was later destroyed and the Jews scattered to the ends of the earth while Christians inherited the entire Roman Empire without lifting a sword.

The Rabbinical system preaches Judaism; the same Judaism that Jesus came to confirm down to the letter. (Mat.5:17-19) And for the sword that Christianity did not need to lift against Rome was reserved to be lifted against the Jews by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust only 70 years ago. What does it mean that Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans and Christians conquered Rome without a sword? Assyria conquered the Jews and fell; Babylon conquered the Jews and fell. Rome conquered the Jews and fell. Christianity will too. According to Jeremiah 46:28, of the other nations, the Lord will eventually make an end of them all but of the Jews He will only chastise as we deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jorel, we have been too long hammering on the subject of Replacement Theology and you almost willingly refuse to walk by sight. Do you know the meaning of walking by sight? It's when you see where you walk and know where you walk to. The opposite would be to walk by faith. To walk by faith is to walk with a guide and a cane. Paul said that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight. (2 Cor.5:7) And you are doing exactly as the "Doctor says."

Would you like me to give you an exegesis of verse-by-verse from Galatians 4:21-31 and the book of Hebrews? If you still won't admit the truth of Replacement Theology as a Pauline policy I'll rest my case. The whole book of Hebrews is a compendium on Replacement Theology. The only feedback I wish from you in case you decide to admit is that you understand that the NT is indeed a book about Replacement Theology but you prefer to adopt it as it is. You won't be the first. All Christians do it because they just can't avoid it. A Christian preacher can't open his or her mouth from a pulpit without preaching Replacement Theology. I have noticed that many times when I watch a TV Evangelist sermonizing.

Man Ben, That old toot again?

I have already been through this with you step by step, you refuse point blank to even admit that what I have said is correct, you are too fond of this replacement theology being central to the Christian doctrine. I agree with you on one thing, many churches preach it, the RCC teaches it, even if they have now backed away from it slightly, over the centuries it was taught matter of fact by the RCC and even the protestant churches, but the truth is (again), it is NOT BIBLICAL.

It is a misrepresentation of the text, to further political goals but no way is it biblical.

The RCC teaches a lot of things that are not biblical, then again the bible is not central to their belief system, they are quite Rabbinical in their approach, since tradition plays as much a part in their interpretation as does the text itself. Since they have a very long tradition of sticking it to the Jews, it is no wonder that it has influenced their approach, but again let me stress, it is not biblical, it is NOT what Paul was teaching, it is a perversion of the truth.

It is in that light that I reject your statements on Replacement Theology. I even have a thread, a few years old where I have shown this to be the case.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=188367

The book of Hebrews is one of the two greatest theological treatises of the New Testament. This letter is, in a real sense, the "Leviticus" of the New Testament, detailing how the Lord Jesus Christ is both the fulfillment and the successor to all that had gone on before.

The extreme dilemma of the Jewish Christians, especially while the Temple was still standing, was their extreme predicament.

They had been drawn from a divinely appointed religion, with divinely appointed priests officiating in a divinely appointed Temple, accomplishing a divinely ordered service, all of which had been ennobled throughout their entire history.

How could believing priests and Pharisees remain "zealous of the Law"? It was, after all, the Jewish world that had crucified Christ and was repudiating Him.

This letter was clearly aimed at the people who were now Christians but had come out of Judaism. It focuses on the background that they came from, and tries to demonstrate how Jesus was a fulfillment of those things; in fact, he superseded those things. Jesus is the very fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Galatians 4:21-31

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,

you who never bore a child;

shout for joy and cry aloud,

you who were never in labor;

because more are the children of the desolate woman

than of her who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul is comparing two types of people, those who are Jewish by birth, thus flesh and blood sons of the Mosaic covenant. These are the slaves, because they are under the slavery of the Mosaic Laws.

They are contrasted with those people who are children of the Jerusalem from above, a reference to heaven and God, thus he is talking of those who became sons in spirit rather than belonging to a bloodline of the flesh. These people he considers to be free, because none of them are bound by the Mosaic Laws which could only show our unworthiness before God. Thus the barren woman bears sons (spiritual children), who are promised (as Isaac was a child of promise to Abraham) that they would become more numerous than those sons of the flesh.

And as Ishmaels descendants persecuted the literal sons of the promise according to the spirit, as given to Abraham, so do now the children of the promise (the Jews), persecute the sons in the Spirit (the Gentile and Jewish Christian believers).

He then tells people to leave slavery behind, to leave those who are now the persecutors, and become free in the promise of Christ.

One thing to keep in mind here, this Letter was specifically addressed to the Jewish Christians, that is why it is called "Hebrews", it is to them that this whole message is being written. If your allegations were true, he would NOT be saying this to the very Jews who now believed in Christ.

He is not teaching replacement of Jews with Christians, he is not teaching that the promises were withdrawn from the Jews and Given to the church, which is exactly what Replacement Theology teaches, Paul is very clear on this, the Church is grafted into the promises given to the Jews, they have not been cut off.

If you pay attention you will notice a common theme within Christianity. Those Christians who teach Amillennialism also teach Replacement Theology where the Church is viewed as replacing Israel in God's program for mankind. In addition to forcing an allegorization of many key passages of Scripture, this also led to the tragedy of the Holocaust in Europe. The responsibility for the six million Jews who were systematically murdered in the concentration camps has to include the silent pulpits who had embraced this heretical eschatology and its attendant anti-Semitism.

Do you honestly think that Paul would ever willingly embrace a concept that would lead to a Jewish slaughter? There was no hate in the man that could justify such a belief. Paul wanted to win the Jews to Jesus, not destroy them. Paul did teach a path that was the culmination of Judaism and Jewish belief, He taught the path that should have led them all to encounter their Messiah, to him that was indeed the superior path, that is the essence of this text.

You can maintain your belief in the evil Paul, but his words demonstrate the very opposite of what you claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Jesus as a desendant of Isaac said he didn t come to change any laws, but add to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Jesus as a desendant of Isaac said he didn t come to change any laws, but add to them.

I'm pretty sure (read, 100% certain) that the actual comment was that he didn't come to change the law but to "fulfil" the Law. In some ways I suppose there is an element of "adding", but it is not always so, and a corruption of the Bible to suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Ben, That old toot again?

I have already been through this with you step by step, you refuse point blank to even admit that what I have said is correct, you are too fond of this replacement theology being central to the Christian doctrine. I agree with you on one thing, many churches preach it, the RCC teaches it, even if they have now backed away from it slightly, over the centuries it was taught matter of fact by the RCC and even the protestant churches, but the truth is (again), it is NOT BIBLICAL.

It is a misrepresentation of the text, to further political goals but no way is it biblical.

The RCC teaches a lot of things that are not biblical, then again the bible is not central to their belief system, they are quite Rabbinical in their approach, since tradition plays as much a part in their interpretation as does the text itself. Since they have a very long tradition of sticking it to the Jews, it is no wonder that it has influenced their approach, but again let me stress, it is not biblical, it is NOT what Paul was teaching, it is a perversion of the truth.

It is in that light that I reject your statements on Replacement Theology. I even have a thread, a few years old where I have shown this to be the case.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=188367

The book of Hebrews is one of the two greatest theological treatises of the New Testament. This letter is, in a real sense, the "Leviticus" of the New Testament, detailing how the Lord Jesus Christ is both the fulfillment and the successor to all that had gone on before.

The extreme dilemma of the Jewish Christians, especially while the Temple was still standing, was their extreme predicament.

They had been drawn from a divinely appointed religion, with divinely appointed priests officiating in a divinely appointed Temple, accomplishing a divinely ordered service, all of which had been ennobled throughout their entire history.

How could believing priests and Pharisees remain "zealous of the Law"? It was, after all, the Jewish world that had crucified Christ and was repudiating Him.

This letter was clearly aimed at the people who were now Christians but had come out of Judaism. It focuses on the background that they came from, and tries to demonstrate how Jesus was a fulfillment of those things; in fact, he superseded those things. Jesus is the very fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Galatians 4:21-31

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,

you who never bore a child;

shout for joy and cry aloud,

you who were never in labor;

because more are the children of the desolate woman

than of her who has a husband.”

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul is comparing two types of people, those who are Jewish by birth, thus flesh and blood sons of the Mosaic covenant. These are the slaves, because they are under the slavery of the Mosaic Laws.

They are contrasted with those people who are children of the Jerusalem from above, a reference to heaven and God, thus he is talking of those who became sons in spirit rather than belonging to a bloodline of the flesh. These people he considers to be free, because none of them are bound by the Mosaic Laws which could only show our unworthiness before God. Thus the barren woman bears sons (spiritual children), who are promised (as Isaac was a child of promise to Abraham) that they would become more numerous than those sons of the flesh.

And as Ishmaels descendants persecuted the literal sons of the promise according to the spirit, as given to Abraham, so do now the children of the promise (the Jews), persecute the sons in the Spirit (the Gentile and Jewish Christian believers).

He then tells people to leave slavery behind, to leave those who are now the persecutors, and become free in the promise of Christ.

One thing to keep in mind here, this Letter was specifically addressed to the Jewish Christians, that is why it is called "Hebrews", it is to them that this whole message is being written. If your allegations were true, he would NOT be saying this to the very Jews who now believed in Christ.

He is not teaching replacement of Jews with Christians, he is not teaching that the promises were withdrawn from the Jews and Given to the church, which is exactly what Replacement Theology teaches, Paul is very clear on this, the Church is grafted into the promises given to the Jews, they have not been cut off.

If you pay attention you will notice a common theme within Christianity. Those Christians who teach Amillennialism also teach Replacement Theology where the Church is viewed as replacing Israel in God's program for mankind. In addition to forcing an allegorization of many key passages of Scripture, this also led to the tragedy of the Holocaust in Europe. The responsibility for the six million Jews who were systematically murdered in the concentration camps has to include the silent pulpits who had embraced this heretical eschatology and its attendant anti-Semitism.

Do you honestly think that Paul would ever willingly embrace a concept that would lead to a Jewish slaughter? There was no hate in the man that could justify such a belief. Paul wanted to win the Jews to Jesus, not destroy them. Paul did teach a path that was the culmination of Judaism and Jewish belief, He taught the path that should have led them all to encounter their Messiah, to him that was indeed the superior path, that is the essence of this text.

You can maintain your belief in the evil Paul, but his words demonstrate the very opposite of what you claim.

Then at the end in Galatians 4:30,31 "Therefore my brothers we are not children of the slave girl (Hagar) who represented the Sinatitic Covenant but of Sara the mother who is free. So, cast out the slave girl and her son together because her son (Ishmael who represents the Jews) will never be an heir in equal terms with the son of the one born free (Sara)." In other words, cast out the Jewish Covenant, cast out the Law. If this is not Replacement Theology I got your message loud and clear. You admit the NT is an encyclopedia of RT but that's how you want it to be. Besides, take a look at Hebrew 7:12,22. "When there is a change of the priesthood there is necessarily a change of the Law. Therefore Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant." A better than which covenant? Obviously the Sinaitic Covenant. If this is not RT, at least I got your answer. Now read Romans 10:4. "Christ is the end of the Law." What Law he was talking about? Read Romans 7:7. "Thou shall not covet." That's under a Pauline allegory of freedom of the Law as a woman gets free from her dead husband. I got you answer. Now I promise no more RT with you as long as you don't shove Paul on me preaching it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then at the end in Galatians 4:30,31 "Therefore my brothers we are not children of the slave girl (Hagar) who represented the Sinatitic Covenant but of Sara the mother who is free. So, cast out the slave girl and her son together because her son (Ishmael who represents the Jews) will never be an heir in equal terms with the son of the one born free (Sara)." In other words, cast out the Jewish Covenant, cast out the Law. If this is not Replacement Theology I got your message loud and clear. You admit the NT is an encyclopedia of RT but that's how you want it to be. Besides, take a look at Hebrew 7:12,22. "When there is a change of the priesthood there is necessarily a change of the Law. Therefore Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant." A better than which covenant? Obviously the Sinaitic Covenant. If this is not RT, at least I got your answer. Now read Romans 10:4. "Christ is the end of the Law." What Law he was talking about? Read Romans 7:7. "Thou shall not covet." That's under a Pauline allegory of freedom of the Law as a woman gets free from her dead husband. I got you answer. Now I promise no more RT with you as long as you don't shove Paul on me preaching it.

I don't shove RT on you or anybody else, I don't accept it and I don't believe Paul accepted it.

What I do believe is that there is indeed a better covenant, one that goes beyond the Law of the Mosaic Covenant. It goes beyond the Mosaic Covenant because indeed, the Mosaic covenant was completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ alone.

The Mosaic Covenant is a conditional covenant made between God and the nation of Israel, it is conditional in that the blessings that God promises are directly related to Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Law. If Israel is obedient, then God will bless them, but if they disobey, then God will punish them. Unlike the other covenants, which were unilateral in that God binds Himself to do what He promised, regardless of what the recipients of the promises might do. On the other hand the Mosaic Covenant is a bilateral agreement, which specifies the obligations of both parties to the covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant is especially significant because in it God promises to make Israel “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”. Israel was to be God’s light to the dark world around them. They were to be a separate and called-out nation so that everyone around them would know that they worshiped Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God.

A covenant that was broken time and again by Israel and thus suffered for it according to the very covenant they agreed to.

Jesus by fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant where no-one else could, provided the basis for a New Covenant, that was superior to the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Covenant is a new relationship between God and all humans (not just Israel) mediated by Jesus. This New Covenant states that "Israel" is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israel. So the blood line becomes redundant, it is the spiritual Israel that we all belong to, if we accept Jesus as the Messiah and his blood spilled on the cross seals this covenant.

That is what Paul taught, and what I believe is reflected in the New Testament (The New Covenant).

So Judaism is not replaced, it is expanded, that is the error in your interpretation.

A New Covenant also means a new Priesthood and High Priest, as you said, and we believers in Jesus the Messiah, are those priests and the High Priest is none other than Jesus Christ himself.

So there is no replacement, the old covenant has simply become irrelevant, it was absorbed into the New Covenant.

Historically, there really should not be a religion called Christianity, it was never called that until many years later, it is more properly called Fulfilled Judaism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't shove RT on you or anybody else, I don't accept it and I don't believe Paul accepted it.

What I do believe is that there is indeed a better covenant, one that goes beyond the Law of the Mosaic Covenant. It goes beyond the Mosaic Covenant because indeed, the Mosaic covenant was completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ alone.

The Mosaic Covenant is a conditional covenant made between God and the nation of Israel, it is conditional in that the blessings that God promises are directly related to Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Law. If Israel is obedient, then God will bless them, but if they disobey, then God will punish them. Unlike the other covenants, which were unilateral in that God binds Himself to do what He promised, regardless of what the recipients of the promises might do. On the other hand the Mosaic Covenant is a bilateral agreement, which specifies the obligations of both parties to the covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant is especially significant because in it God promises to make Israel “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”. Israel was to be God’s light to the dark world around them. They were to be a separate and called-out nation so that everyone around them would know that they worshiped Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God.

A covenant that was broken time and again by Israel and thus suffered for it according to the very covenant they agreed to.

Jesus by fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant where no-one else could, provided the basis for a New Covenant, that was superior to the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Covenant is a new relationship between God and all humans (not just Israel) mediated by Jesus. This New Covenant states that "Israel" is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israel. So the blood line becomes redundant, it is the spiritual Israel that we all belong to, if we accept Jesus as the Messiah and his blood spilled on the cross seals this covenant.

That is what Paul taught, and what I believe is reflected in the New Testament (The New Covenant).

So Judaism is not replaced, it is expanded, that is the error in your interpretation.

A New Covenant also means a new Priesthood and High Priest, as you said, and we believers in Jesus the Messiah, are those priests and the High Priest is none other than Jesus Christ himself.

So there is no replacement, the old covenant has simply become irrelevant, it was absorbed into the New Covenant.

Historically, there really should not be a religion called Christianity, it was never called that until many years later, it is more properly called Fulfilled Judaism.

No one could do better than what you have done above to explain Replacement Theology. Every single paragraph above is a statement of Replacement Theology. The only thing you must add to your understanding is that the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in 31:31 was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with Gentiles unless they convert to Judaism according to Isaiah 56:1-8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No one could do better than what you have done above to explain Replacement Theology. Every single paragraph above is a statement of Replacement Theology. The only thing you must add to your understanding is that the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in 31:31 was established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with Gentiles unless they convert to Judaism according to Isaiah 56:1-8.

No it isn't Ben, if you need help seeing that you can merely go here... http://en.wikipedia....Supersessionism

One question though, in any of the text that I wrote and that you claim is Replacement Theology, where do you find me stating that Christianity is the inheritor of the promises made with the children of Israel?

Where have I stated that the Jews no longer are relevant?

Where have I stated that the Jews are condemned by God, forfeiting the promises otherwise due to them under the covenants?

Where have I stated that the nation of Israel in God's plan is replaced by the role of the Church?

This reminds me of a little story where the eldest child of a very rich family gets all in a huffy just because his family decided to adopt a child. Who does this little upstart think he is, coming here and replacing me?

That is what you conversation sounds like to me.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't shove RT on you or anybody else, I don't accept it and I don't believe Paul accepted it.

What I do believe is that there is indeed a better covenant, one that goes beyond the Law of the Mosaic Covenant. It goes beyond the Mosaic Covenant because indeed, the Mosaic covenant was completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ alone.

The Mosaic Covenant is a conditional covenant made between God and the nation of Israel, it is conditional in that the blessings that God promises are directly related to Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Law. If Israel is obedient, then God will bless them, but if they disobey, then God will punish them. Unlike the other covenants, which were unilateral in that God binds Himself to do what He promised, regardless of what the recipients of the promises might do. On the other hand the Mosaic Covenant is a bilateral agreement, which specifies the obligations of both parties to the covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant is especially significant because in it God promises to make Israel “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”. Israel was to be God’s light to the dark world around them. They were to be a separate and called-out nation so that everyone around them would know that they worshiped Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God.

A covenant that was broken time and again by Israel and thus suffered for it according to the very covenant they agreed to.

Jesus by fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant where no-one else could, provided the basis for a New Covenant, that was superior to the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Covenant is a new relationship between God and all humans (not just Israel) mediated by Jesus. This New Covenant states that "Israel" is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israel. So the blood line becomes redundant, it is the spiritual Israel that we all belong to, if we accept Jesus as the Messiah and his blood spilled on the cross seals this covenant.

That is what Paul taught, and what I believe is reflected in the New Testament (The New Covenant).

So Judaism is not replaced, it is expanded, that is the error in your interpretation.

A New Covenant also means a new Priesthood and High Priest, as you said, and we believers in Jesus the Messiah, are those priests and the High Priest is none other than Jesus Christ himself.

So there is no replacement, the old covenant has simply become irrelevant, it was absorbed into the New Covenant.

Historically, there really should not be a religion called Christianity, it was never called that until many years later, it is more properly called Fulfilled Judaism.

Hi Jor-el,

Thanks for this post. For the most part I agree with everything you wrote. However, I do differ with you in a small key area. I'm not sure if this is perhaps simply a misunderstanding of the wording of your post, but when you say the old covenant has become "irrelevant", the implication I read into this is that we no longer need to adhere to the Law. I do not think this is the case at all. The Old Covenant was conditional, I agree with you on that. The New Covenant is not based on how well we follow the Law, but that doesn't mean we in the New Covenant are absolved from following the Law. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not abolish it. And as you know, right after saying this, in Matthew 5 Jesus goes on to talk about certain laws (murder, adultery, etc) and fulfilling them with a spiritual/mental component - it was no longer a physical action but a spiritual issue (anger, lustful thoughts, etc). All these laws are still applicable to the life of a Christian, they are not "irrelevant". However, because of Jesus we don't necessarily follow the Law in the same way as the Jews followed the Law. God isn't going to remove his blessing from us if we break the Law because we are under a New Covenant. But we still need to adhere to it to do God's will.

If this is what you had in mind then I apologise, but I thought I'd clarify my position here to address what I read to be a small difference. If the Old Covenant truly is irrelevant, then that sounds like the covenant has indeed been "replaced" as opposed to expanded.

I do find your suggestion of the term "Fulfilled Judaism" to be interesting. I like it.

All the best,

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jesus attended a wedding in Cana:

4. The Wedding at Cana

(1528.4)137:4.1 By noon on Wednesday almost a thousand guests had arrived in Cana, more than four times the number bidden to the wedding feast. It was a Jewish custom to celebrate weddings on Wednesday, and the invitations had been sent abroad for the wedding one month previously. In the forenoon and early afternoon it appeared more like a public reception for Jesus than a wedding. Everybody wanted to greet this near-famous Galilean, and he was most cordial to all, young and old, Jew and gentile. And everybody rejoiced when Jesus consented to lead the preliminary wedding procession.

(1528.5)137:4.2 Jesus was now thoroughly self-conscious regarding his human existence, his divine pre-existence, and the status of his combined, or fused, human and divine natures. With perfect poise he could at one moment enact the human role or immediately assume the personality prerogatives of the divine nature.

(1528.6)137:4.3 As the day wore on, Jesus became increasingly conscious that the people were expecting him to perform some wonder; more especially he recognized that his family and his six disciple-apostles were looking for him appropriately to announce his forthcoming kingdom by some startling and supernatural manifestation.

(1529.1)137:4.4 Early in the afternoon Mary summoned James, and together they made bold to approach Jesus to inquire if he would admit them to his confidence to the extent of informing them at what hour and at what point in connection with the wedding ceremonies he had planned to manifest himself as the “supernatural one.” No sooner had they spoken of these matters to Jesus than they saw they had aroused his characteristic indignation. He said only: “If you love me, then be willing to tarry with me while I wait upon the will of my Father who is in heaven.” But the eloquence of his rebuke lay in the expression of his face.

*snip*

http://www.urantia.o...time-in-galilee

Edited by Paranoid Android
No need to quote so much when people can go directly to the source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would back the marriage bit it's more probable than him not being married, you only have the church's slanted view of things and of course they don'nt want a women in the picture at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You can't put new wine into old wine skins.

Jesus was not married, he was betrayed.

I will give you some revelation however, and its quick, regarding that betrayal by Judas and what happened to that money..

The field that Judas inherited was the field sold by Ananias and Sapphira..that was the field Judas treachery paid for. The apostles had a clear right to that money, because they tried to keep some ( even though they knew it was blood money) they were cut down before Peter, delivering only part of it back thinking the amount was not known, they were thieves too..you might wonder if they were related to Judas since they possessed similar traits? Remember judas father was a Pharisee called Simon. Keeping any of the 30 silver pieces was instant indemnity..Judas betrayed Jesus because he also loved Mary, you can see his jealousy at Mary when she brought the ointment. They wanted her and her wealth in there family, a good match for there Son Judas. As much as Judas loved Jesus he loved Mary and her money more. The betrayal was a love crime, much like in the Garden of Eden, jealousy..ambition..very sad the whole thing, Jesus, my King you suffered so much in silence,even in your suffering your tears were not for yourself.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was not a demigod (half man, half god) the way Hercules (and other demigods) was, so any children he had wouldn't be part-divine.

I'm playing along with your theory that Jesus was NOT a demigod -- He was a God since He was able to do all those miracles and casting out demons and so on. If Jesus had fathered children, they would have grown as giants since they would not have gone through immaculate conception.

Just brainstorming, PA, with the Nephilim story fading in and out of my thinking.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One question though, in any of the text that I wrote and that you claim is Replacement Theology, where do you find me stating that Christianity is the inheritor of the promises made with the children of Israel?

"What I do believe is that there is indeed a better covenant, one that goes beyond the Law of the Mosaic Covenant. It goes beyond the Mosaic Covenant because indeed, the Mosaic covenant was completely fulfilled by Jesus Christ alone." *This is akin to what Paul said in Galatians to cast out the Sinaitic Covenant because Israel could not inherit the Kingdom of God in the same level with Christians. (Gal.4:30)*

Where have I stated that the Jews no longer are relevant?

"Jesus by fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant where no-one else could, provided the basis for a New Covenant, that was superior to the Mosaic Covenant." *If the Christian covenant was superior to the Mosaic Covenant the election of the Jews was no longer relevant.*

Where have I stated that the Jews are condemned by God, forfeiting the promises otherwise due to them under the covenants?

"The New Covenant is a new relationship between God and all humans (not just Israel) mediated by Jesus. This New Covenant states that "Israel" is primarily a spiritual nation composed of Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah, as well as Gentile believers who through the New Covenant have been grafted into the promises made to Israel. So the blood line becomes redundant, it is the spiritual Israel that we all belong to, if we accept Jesus as the Messiah and his blood spilled on the cross seals this covenant." *When you imply that only the Jews who claim Jesus as their Messiah are part of the spiritual nation under the new covenant it is understood that the God has condemned the rest of the People.*

Where have I stated that the nation of Israel in God's plan is replaced by the role of the Church?

"A New Covenant also means a new Priesthood and High Priest, as you said, and we believers in Jesus the Messiah, are those priests and the High Priest is none other than Jesus Christ himself." *A new Priesthood and High Priest is the role of the Church. And the believers in Jesus as the Messiah have replaced the nation of Israel.*

This reminds me of a little story where the eldest child of a very rich family gets all in a huffy just because his family decided to adopt a child. Who does this little upstart think he is, coming here and replacing me?

So, you do admit that actually there was a replacement. I mean not really but as Christianity is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would back the marriage bit it's more probable than him not being married, you only have the church's slanted view of things and of course they don'nt want a women in the picture at all

Your statement is closer to the truth than many others. Not there yet but close enough for the day. Keep on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jor-el,

Thanks for this post. For the most part I agree with everything you wrote. However, I do differ with you in a small key area. I'm not sure if this is perhaps simply a misunderstanding of the wording of your post, but when you say the old covenant has become "irrelevant", the implication I read into this is that we no longer need to adhere to the Law. I do not think this is the case at all. The Old Covenant was conditional, I agree with you on that. The New Covenant is not based on how well we follow the Law, but that doesn't mean we in the New Covenant are absolved from following the Law. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not abolish it. And as you know, right after saying this, in Matthew 5 Jesus goes on to talk about certain laws (murder, adultery, etc) and fulfilling them with a spiritual/mental component - it was no longer a physical action but a spiritual issue (anger, lustful thoughts, etc). All these laws are still applicable to the life of a Christian, they are not "irrelevant". However, because of Jesus we don't necessarily follow the Law in the same way as the Jews followed the Law. God isn't going to remove his blessing from us if we break the Law because we are under a New Covenant. But we still need to adhere to it to do God's will.

If this is what you had in mind then I apologise, but I thought I'd clarify my position here to address what I read to be a small difference. If the Old Covenant truly is irrelevant, then that sounds like the covenant has indeed been "replaced" as opposed to expanded.

I do find your suggestion of the term "Fulfilled Judaism" to be interesting. I like it.

All the best,

~ Regards, PA

Hi PA,

Yes I agree with you in regards to fulfilling the Law, not abolishing it, When I used the term irrelevant, I meant it within the context of the Covenant itself, the Old Covenant has been expanded, the basis of the Law is still the same, the way we look at it and try to fulfill it however is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

luke 11-20 Jesus spoke of casting out devils.

And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.

But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast [them] out? therefore shall they be your judges.

But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

(Mary Magdalene must have had many overafflictions for Jesus to have cast out seven.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PA,

Yes I agree with you in regards to fulfilling the Law, not abolishing it, When I used the term irrelevant, I meant it within the context of the Covenant itself, the Old Covenant has been expanded, the basis of the Law is still the same, the way we look at it and try to fulfill it however is different.

Ok, thank you. I had a gut feeling this may have been the case and I was just misinterpreted the language you used. But just in case I felt I needed to clarify, both for myself and for those reading. Best wishes,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.