Behold, it Was Leah!... or John?

Behold, it Was Leah!... or John?

Posted in the Messianic Judaism Forum

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#1 Mar 24, 2014
Behold it Was Leah!... or John?

Because of the pagan superstition of Laban, the younger of two daughters could not marry ahead of the older. Laban had to cheat on Jacob who had to pay very dear the price for the wine he had drunk that evening: Another seven years for Rachel who had been replaced by Leah.

Now, because of the Christian superstition that Jesus could not have cheated on the Church by marrying Mary Magdalene, John was made to stand right before the cross at the moment Jesus would pronounce the words: "Woman, behold thy son!" and to his beloved disciple he said, "Behold thy mother!" The Church succeeded because all Christians today agree that Jesus did miss the first commandment to get married and to become with his wife one flesh.(Gen. 2:24)

Now, see the irony: John himself, according to John 19:25,26 reports that "Near the cross of Jesus, there stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. No mention of John in the picture. Seeing his mother there with the disciple whom he loved who obviously was Mary Magdalene at each other's hands, Jesus said, "Woman behold thy son! In other words, look at the condition your son has turned into! I am sorry for having caused you this grief. In turn, he said to the disciple whom he loved: "Behold thy mother!" Technically, Jesus' mother was indeed Magdalene's mother-in-law.(John 19:25,26)

Please, bear with me for just another evidence: If you read the next verse (v.27) after these words of Jesus on the cross, the disciple whom he loved took Jesus' mother into her care. Her care, mind you and not John's for two reasons: First, he was not there before the cross because all the disciples, including John had run away when Jesus had been arrested.(Mark 14:50) and second, John could not have taken care of Jesus' mother because he did not have a house of his own as he lived with Peter.

Besides, from the point of Jewish decorum, Jesus could have never assigned a male disciple to take care of his mother. And last but not least, according to Roman policy, no disciple of a crucified could approach the area of crucifixion, except for women closely related family.

Bottom line: Jacob was cheated into believing that Leah was Rachel and Christians throughout History have been cheated into believing that Jesus' beloved disciple was John and not Mary Magdalene. And on that policy of Replacement has the NT been built.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#2 Mar 25, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
Behold it Was Leah!... or John?

Now, because of the Christian superstition that Jesus could not have cheated on the Church by marrying Mary Magdalene, John was made to stand right before the cross at the moment Jesus would pronounce the words: "Woman, behold thy son!" and to his beloved disciple he said, "Behold thy mother!" The Church succeeded because all Christians today agree that Jesus did miss the first commandment to get married and to become with his wife one flesh.(Gen. 2:24)
Now, see the irony: John himself, according to John 19:25,26 reports that "Near the cross of Jesus, there stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. No mention of John in the picture. Seeing his mother there with the disciple whom he loved who obviously was Mary Magdalene at each other's hands, Jesus said, "Woman behold thy son! In other words, look at the condition your son has turned into! I am sorry for having caused you this grief. In turn, he said to the disciple whom he loved: "Behold thy mother!" Technically, Jesus' mother was indeed Magdalene's mother-in-law.(John 19:25,26)
.
Besides, from the point of Jewish decorum, Jesus could have never assigned a male disciple to take care of his mother. And last but not least, according to Roman policy, no disciple of a crucified could approach the area of crucifixion, except for women closely related family.
Bottom line: Jacob was cheated into believing that Leah was Rachel and Christians throughout History have been cheated into believing that Jesus' beloved disciple was John and not Mary Magdalene. And on that policy of Replacement has the NT been built.
.
Your posts never cease to amaze me in how you can ignore the plain meaning of a phrase or passage and come up with things that have no continuity.
.
I will give you my critique of your points:
.
1. It wouldn't have been cheating IF Yeshua was married to Mary because:
a. Polygamy was not considered cheating
b. You are trying to equate a physical marriage with a spiritual one.
2. The reasoning that he was talking to his mother and Mary makes the meaning of the passage incongruent and irrelevant.
3. There is a feminine form for disciple (acts 9:36) which isn't used in this verse, a masculine form is used to show us the disciple is a male.
4. There is no command to become one flesh, Gn 2:24, merely tells us that when a man takes a wife he will bond with her and the bond to his parents should break.
5. If you are thinking the command to be fruitful and multiply, he did this by raising spiritual children of which he has billions. Besides this there is no data either way as to whether Yeshua married and had children.
6. You need to cite a Jewish source for why a disciple would not be able to look after his masters mother.
7. You need to cite a Roman source to support your assertion that his disciples were restricted from attending the crucifixtion.
8. This premise does not lead to replacement theology, the words of Yeshua himself teach us that the favour of G-d is given to a goy that will bring forth fruit that attends repentance. Mat_21:43 It is also supported by the words of Paul. Rom_11:17
.
Conclusion: Your modus operandi hasn't improved, you continue to make assertions which you fail to cite an authority for, you continue to disregard the plain meaning of the text, you continue to ignore the nuances of the original text like in this case the gender of the word and lastly you continue to harp on replacement theology. If the Jews have rejected their Messiah as predicted by the scriptures Psa_118:22 and tradition (as with Moses so the Messiah, Moses was rejected the first time, when away, took a goy for a wife and returned to another generation), why shouldn't G-d reject them 1Sa_2:30?

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#3 Sep 6, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Your posts never cease to amaze me in how you can ignore the plain meaning of a phrase or passage and come up with things that have no continuity.
.
I will give you my critique of your points:
.
1. It wouldn't have been cheating IF Yeshua was married to Mary because:
a. Polygamy was not considered cheating
b. You are trying to equate a physical marriage with a spiritual one.
2. The reasoning that he was talking to his mother and Mary makes the meaning of the passage incongruent and irrelevant.
3. There is a feminine form for disciple (acts 9:36) which isn't used in this verse, a masculine form is used to show us the disciple is a male.
4. There is no command to become one flesh, Gn 2:24, merely tells us that when a man takes a wife he will bond with her and the bond to his parents should break.
5. If you are thinking the command to be fruitful and multiply, he did this by raising spiritual children of which he has billions. Besides this there is no data either way as to whether Yeshua married and had children.
6. You need to cite a Jewish source for why a disciple would not be able to look after his masters mother.
7. You need to cite a Roman source to support your assertion that his disciples were restricted from attending the crucifixtion.
8. This premise does not lead to replacement theology, the words of Yeshua himself teach us that the favour of G-d is given to a goy that will bring forth fruit that attends repentance. Mat_21:43 It is also supported by the words of Paul. Rom_11:17
.
Conclusion: Your modus operandi hasn't improved, you continue to make assertions which you fail to cite an authority for, you continue to disregard the plain meaning of the text, you continue to ignore the nuances of the original text like in this case the gender of the word and lastly you continue to harp on replacement theology. If the Jews have rejected their Messiah as predicted by the scriptures Psa_118:22 and tradition (as with Moses so the Messiah, Moses was rejected the first time, when away, took a goy for a wife and returned to another generation), why shouldn't G-d reject them 1Sa_2:30?
----------

And your modus operandi hasn't changed a bit from the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. Jesus was a Jewish man whose Faith was Judaism and as a Jew myself, I am speaking about him as such. That's the difference between your testimony and mine. You do not realize that you are using a Jew to preach against his own Faith which was Judaism.

Your points above to criticize mine completely deny not only Jesus' Jewish identity but also that he existed at all. It does not matter how spiritual you claim Jesus' marriage was; he was a Jew and the commandment to get married and be with his wife of one flesh is a Torah law and well documented down in Genesis 2:24. You can't even conceive the idea that a healthy Jew according to Jewish culture at that time would become akin to a homosexual man if he willingly refused at least for once to have been a married man.

You need to cite a NT quote where it says that Jesus was NOT married. It does not exist because marriage for a Jew was as important as to obey God's Law. In fact, Jesus did declare that he had come to fulfill all the laws down to the letter according to Matthew 5:17-19 and you are trying to prove him a liar.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#4 Sep 8, 2014
Ben_Masada wrote:
.
<quoted text>
And your modus operandi hasn't changed a bit from the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.
.
It is not my theology of replacement, it is G-d's theology. In 1Sam 2:30 we can see that G-d curses the house of Eli for their despising of their responsibility as priests and therefore he gave the privilege to another.
.
We can see another prophet Moses warned Israel if they forsook his ways the curse would come upon them and they would lose the land, which has happened.
.
Another prophet said: Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luk 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
.
And Yeshua himself said: Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
.
You have rejected the Messiah, as Yeshua said they would, and their field (position of preeminence) is given to others (the goyim and faithful Jews).
1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
.
And you have replaced the Messiah with yourselves (what an act of idolatry) and you refuse (except for Messianic Jews Baruch HaShem) to repent. G-d is surely just.
.
<quoted text>
Your points above to criticize mine completely deny not only Jesus' Jewish identity but also that he existed at all.
.
How is my criticism that you ignore the gender of a word in Greek deny Yeshua's Jewish identity or that he didn't exist?
.
How does pointing out that you made an assertion on crucifixtion for which you have no evidence denying Yeshua's Jewish identity or that he didn't exist?
.
How is pointing out you have no evidence that a Jewish disciple could not look after his rabbi's wife denying Yeshua's Jewish identity or that he didn't exist?
.
How does pointing out you disregard the pashat of the text denying Yeshua's Jewish identity or that he didn't exist?
.
You are talking nonsense.
.
<quoted text>
You can't even conceive the idea that a healthy Jew according to Jewish culture at that time would become akin to a homosexual man if he willingly refused at least for once to have been a married man.
.
We have on the authority of the Talmud that Ben Azzai was unmarried. Sotah 4b
Furthermore can you cite anything in the Talmud which requires a man to get married?
Finally Yeshua also makes this statement:
Mat 19:12 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.
.
<quoted text>
You need to cite a NT quote where it says that Jesus was NOT married. It does not exist because marriage for a Jew was as important as to obey God's Law. In fact, Jesus did declare that he had come to fulfill all the laws down to the letter according to Mat 5:17-19 and you are trying to prove him a liar.
.
Firstly I never said he was unmarried and neither does the NT. So I don't have to prove anything. Secondly the Torah doesn't say at what point a man is to marry so he would still be in compliance as his life was cut short. Lastly there is no command for all men to be fruitful and multiply. That command was given to Adam, Noah's sons and Jacob. As far as I can tell we have no shortage of people. Additionally I don't see how Ben Azzai could have been regarded a tanna, an authority on halakha if he were not in compliance himself.
.
As usual you make statements that when examined are foolish.

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#6 Sep 9, 2014
To Messianic114:

[quote]It is not my theology of replacement, it is G-d's theology. In 1Sam 2:30 we can see that G-d curses the house of Eli for their despising of their responsibility as priests and therefore he gave the privilege to another.[/quote]

I Sam. 2:30 has nothing to do with the Pauline police of Replacement Theology. Then what do we have to do with what happened to the House of Eli? We have nothing to do with the sins of our Fathers.(Ezek. 18:20; II Chron. 2:4)

[quote]Another prophet said: Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.[/quote]

God is able of every thing but one: The thing you wish He did or should have done.

[quote] Luke 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.[/quote

Hell fire is not for the Jews but for those who believe in it.

[quote]And Yeshua himself said: Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.[/quote]

The truth is that of the other nations, the Lord will eventually make an end of them but of Israel, He will only chastise us as we deserve.(Jer. 46:28)

[quote]You have rejected the Messiah, as Yeshua said they would, and their field (position of preeminence) is given to others (the goyim and faithful Jews).[/quote]

How can one reject himself? The Messiah cannot be an individual but the collective in the People of Israel. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we supposed to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever.(Jer. 31:35-37)

[quote]1Pe_2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:[/quote]

That's what the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology is all about.

[quote]And you have replaced the Messiah with yourselves (what an act of idolatry) and you refuse (except for Messianic Jews Baruch HaShem) to repent. G-d is surely just.[/quote]

Are you charging Prophet Habakkuk with being an idolater? He says: "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what Messiah is: The anointed one of the Lord.

[quote]Mat 19:12 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.[/quote]

This is Pauline language, not Jesus'. Paul was the one teaching the young men of his time to avoid women and live as he did, free of women.(I Cor. 7:1,8,27)

[quote]Firstly I never said he was unmarried and neither does the NT. So I don't have to prove anything. Secondly the Torah doesn't say at what point a man is to marry so he would still be in compliance as his life was cut short. Lastly there is no command for all men to be fruitful and multiply.[/quote]

The commandment to get married was given to all Mankind.(Gen. 1:28; 2:24) Jesus came to fulfill all the commandments down to the letter.(Mat. 5:17-19) Therefore he was a married man.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Messianic Judaism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hanukkah With the Jews for Jesus (Mar '15) Feb '17 Messianic114 42
Two House Theology (Jul '10) Feb '17 nijjhar 12
Two Comings Of HaMoshiach Clearly Supported In ... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Bruce 5
The Dangers Of Radiationism (Aug '16) Aug '16 Bruce 1
The curse of chiliasm (Jul '16) Jul '16 leon fortayne 6
Messianic group meeting in Arkansas (Apr '16) Apr '16 Dahlia Moriah 1
Messianic Congregation (Dec '15) Feb '16 messianic114 2
More from around the web