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?