The Wedding of Jesus

[jamie]

scripture please?

Romans 7:1-4

 

[Bright Raven]

Romans 7:1-4

Would you explain where that passage defines Jesus being married.

 

[Ben Masada]

He came through our people. Blessed are we above all peoples, because He sanctified the World from the chosen Land.

Jesus was a Jew and came as part of our People, not through our People.

Anti-Semitism is the result of Rott teachings that reject God did and does have a special purpose for the Jews.

Nameless, what in your mind is the special purpose Antisemitism has for the Jews?

There will come a time when there will be mourning for the One we pierced. And yet, it is part of Gods plan.

We did not pierce Jesus. He was pierced by the Romans for the insurrection of being acclaimed king of the Jews in Jerusalem by his own disciples. (Luke 19:37-40)

God hasn't revealed the full Spiritual plan yet, but He has laid the foundation of the Kingdom.

The Lord has revealed the foundation of the Kingdom in Exodus 19:5,6.

There is great work abroad by the Satans. Anti-Semitism is a severe indication of it.

Jews do not believe in Satan. Satan is only a concept to illustrate the evil inclination in man.

Now there is a growing lack of Love in this world. I know you see it Ben.

Yes, I do, Nameless but not in you. I am convinced that you do know what love is.

Luke 22:66*When day came, the Council of the elders of the people (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court) assembled, both chief priests and scribes; and they led Jesus away to the council chamber, saying, 67*“If You are the Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed), tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe [what I say], 68*and if I ask a question, you will not answer. 69*But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” 70*And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?” He replied, “It is just as you say.” 71*Then they asked, “What further need of testimony do we have? For we ourselves have heard it from His own mouth.”

Jesus was a Jew and, he could have never had that dialogue.

John 4:25*The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ—the Anointed); when that One comes, He will tell us everything [we need to know].” 26*Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you, am He (the Messiah).”

That woman was a Samaritan and Jesus did not like Samaritans. Don't forget that, if we are to believe Matthew 10:5,6, when Jesus sent his disciples on a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he forbade his disciples to go into the way of Gentiles, especially Samaritans. I wonder why because I am sure he was aware that the Jews had been divinely assigned for light unto the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6) Probably, a blunder by the writer.

Isaiah 6:10 “Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

This message was delivered by Isaiah to Ephraim, the Ten Tribes that had been Divinely doomed to be taken away by the Assyrians into a permanent exile. (Psalm 78:67-70) The point is that they could not listen and repent and be saved.

Please link to this, it is a biblical cross reference that explains what I mean by suggesting that the rejection of the Messiah by our people was for told.

Nameless, Jesus could not have been the Messiah; not as an individual. 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. (Jeremiah 31:35-37) Then if you read Habakkuk 3:13, "The Lord goes forth to save His People; to save His Anointed One." That's what the Messiah is, the Anointed One of the Lord aka Israel, the Jewish People.

 

[Ben Masada]

My contention is that Jesus is the Christ and the Christ was married at Mt. Sinai in Arabia.

And Jesus was born only about two thousand years later. What happened in Mt. Sinai was a Covenant between the Father and His son. Don't forget that, "Israel is My Son..." (Exodus 4:22,23)

 

[Ben Masada]

Lol!!! Well I'm always up for it so consider the compliment returned. [emoji106][emoji3]

Sent from my iPad using TOL Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

Thanks.

 

[Feral Phoenician]

My difficulty not to accept is based on the fact that the gospel of Paul aka the NT is using a Jew to build the church of Paul aka Christianity which in other words is Replacement Theology. Jesus was a Jew and never became a Christian. Therefore, he cannot be used to build Christianity.

Jesus was born, lived, and died a Jew (a much more Observant Jew than I'll ever hope to be).

I do not see any malice, nor desire for personal gain in the actions of Jesus. I just don't. I think Jesus was a very good, and very wise, man and scholar. I also do not see ulterior motives in the actions of people like Peter, Luke, etc. Btw, I believe of all of these people to have been very real.

Paul...Paul is the number one reason I have challenges with Christianity. He was a very educated man (this is evident just from his writings), he spoke at minimum four languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin). He was a very wealthy man (not only did he hold Roman Citizenship, it costs money to travel the world, and he did so freely).

I do see personal gain in Paul. I think the man heard opportunity knocking, and flung open the door. Even the Apostles were weary of Paul and his motives.

Paul was well schooled in Hellenistic thought and practice. He incorporated it into his own teachings. He single-handedly altered Judaism into his own worldview.

To tell a secret, I had at one point considered converting. I did. I enjoyed my ex wife's church. Yeah, it could get wild, but I've never felt anything like it, and I can "testify" that I was witness to things I cannot explain, and I am a rational man. I actually do, "in my heart of hearts", think there is good possibility Jesus really was the Christ.

But then Paul. It's a "gut feeling" that he was a scheming con artist.

 

[jamie]

But then Paul. It's a "gut feeling" that he was a scheming con artist.

If he had been Jesus would have fired him.

Paul was not wealthy. (1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

 

[Cruciform]

Ben Masada's OP was categorically refuted way back in Post #14. And, of course, Ben did not even attempt a response, let alone a refutation.

END OF THREAD.

 

[beameup]

I don't recall right now where that requirement is written in the Tanach but I'll try to provide it for you eventually. However, I did meet a Rabbi-to-be in a Reform Synagogue who had finished the course and was waiting to get married to apply for the position. And, believe it or not, when I was personally debating a Seventh-Day Adventist Pastor-to-be, he was getting ready to marry before being able to apply for a position as a Pastor for which he was not accepted as single man.

I hate to "pop your bubble", but Yeshua's first appearance was as a Prophet - he never made it to the position of King & Priest(under the order of Melchizedek) because he was rejected.
When he presented himself on the day that the Passover lambs were chosen, he was examined for any "blemishes" for 4 days, and then rejected even though there were no "defects" in him. Nevertheless, he was offered up as a sacrifice at the precise time that the High Priest was slitting the throat of the Passover lamb.

Moses: "YHWH thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" - Deut 18:15

YHWH: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee [Moses], and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." - Deut 18:18

Peter: "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." - Acts 3:22-23

Jesus rejected in his hometown: "And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and in his own house." - Matt 13:57

Yeshua brought the people back to the TRUE Moses, as the religious leaders had departed very far from the true meaning of the Torah and created man-made "traditions" (ie: Mishna-Talmud).

 

[Feral Phoenician]

If he had been Jesus would have fired him.

Paul was not wealthy. (1 Corinthians 4:11-13)

That's a nagging question of mine; did Paul fabricate the entire Road to Damascus encounter? The fact that the other Apostles (especially Peter, who identified Jesus as the Son of God) were so weary and skeptical is why I have so many reservations.

As to his wealth, I'm speaking of prior to Paul's mission. There is a very strong likelihood that he "went broke" during it. For a man to be educated as he was, he "came from money".

 

[jamie]

Would you explain where that passage defines Jesus being married.

Paul said, "That you may be married to another." (Romans 7:4)

If that is too oblique for you there's this one. "Return, O backsliding children," says the LORD, "for I am married to you." (Jeremiah 3:14)

Or how about this one? "For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is His name and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. He is called the God of the whole earth." (Isaiah 54:5)

And this one. "Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, so have you dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 3:20)

Of course there is this one. "My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:32)

And there is this. "then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now." (Hosea 2:7)

 

[jamie]

That's a nagging question of mine; did Paul fabricate the entire Road to Damascus encounter? The fact that the other Apostles (especially Peter, who identified Jesus as the Son of God) were so weary and skeptical is why I have so many reservations.

Would you not be skeptical of a terrorist? Paul said, "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." (1 Timothy 1:15)

There is not an account of a greater sinner before Paul.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That's not the gospel of Jesus. The gospel of Jesus was the Tanach. Show me in the Tanach where I can read that Jesus was the Messiah.

I just gave you what Jesus said to His disciples. Why do reject what He said?

 

[Tambora]

Simeon Ben Azzai was never married.

 

[Feral Phoenician]

Would you not be skeptical of a terrorist? Paul said, "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." (1 Timothy 1:15)

There is not an account of a greater sinner before Paul.

Very good point. Paul's actions were, to use an old Irish euphemism, "beyond the Pale".

Paul represents a physical form of going "beyond the beyonds", whereas Jesus used an allegorical example with "The Prodigal Son" (sleeping with pigs and eating their food).

So now the question becomes were the Apostles skeptical of Paul because of his heinous actions, or were they skeptical because a man who had performed said heinous actions, was now abruptly claiming to be "one of them"?

Speaking of the Prodigal Son, it just struck me that it may have dual meaning; Jesus, of course, meant it in a way that none are beyond the forgiveness of sins (his father still welcomes him home, and treats him as a rightful son). But...could Jesus also have been speaking of Paul, prepping the Apostles for Paul's arrival?

 

[Ben Masada]

Very good point. Paul's actions were, to use an old Irish euphemism, "beyond the Pale".

Paul represents a physical form of going "beyond the beyonds", whereas Jesus used an allegorical example with "The Prodigal Son" (sleeping with pigs and eating their food).

So now the question becomes were the Apostles skeptical of Paul because of his heinous actions, or were they skeptical because a man who had performed said heinous actions, was now abruptly claiming to be "one of them"?

Speaking of the Prodigal Son, it just struck me that it may have dual meaning; Jesus, of course, meant it in a way that none are beyond the forgiveness of sins (his father still welcomes him home, and treats him as a rightful son). But...could Jesus also have been speaking of Paul, prepping the Apostles for Paul's arrival?

Jesus never even had an idea that Paul would ever rise. When Paul founded his church in the city of Antioch, Jesus had long gone; about 15 or 20 years. (Acts 11:26)

 

[Ben Masada]

Simeon Ben Azzai was never married.

He probably had a health condition which would render him unable to fulfill that commandment. But I doubt this is true because, according to the Scriptures a High Priest could not be anointed to officiate as such if he had any kind of sex mutilation which would prevent him from being a married man.

 

[Ben Masada]

I just gave you what Jesus said to His disciples. Why do reject what He said?

Because he did not say what you claim he did. The claim is Christian and Jesus was a Jew. Besides, not a single Jew took part in the writing of the NT. They were all Hellenist former disciples of Paul.

 

[Tambora]

He probably had a health condition which would render him unable to fulfill that commandment. But I doubt this is true because, according to the Scriptures a High Priest could not be anointed to officiate as such if he had any kind of sex mutilation which would prevent him from being a married man.

Could be any number of reasons why he wasn't married.
But he was addressed as "Rabbi".

I once asked to find out just which authoritative bunch was it that could "officially" grant someone the title of "Rabbi".
I got a vast array of answers.
But the conversation did lead to some interesting thoughts.

One was that the use of the word "Rabbi" did not have to limited to any "authorized" title, but could be used of anyone that taught and had a following of their teaching.
So if the title did not have to be limited to an "official authorized" title, then it would be OK to address Jesus as Rabbi.

But, back to question of who can officially grant that title .......... what would be your answer?
I would think that if it had anything to due with the ruling class of Jews, it would not be an "official" title granted to Jesus since they despised and rejected Him.

 

[Ben Masada]

I hate to "pop your bubble", but Yeshua's first appearance was as a Prophet

So do I, I also hate to "pop your bubble" because when Yeshua was born, the prophetic system had ceased to exist in Israel as a result of the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31; Daniel 9:24) So, Jesus was not a prophet.

he never made it to the position of King & Priest(under the order of Melchizedek) because he was rejected.

So, why, to this day, Christians keep the claim alive that Jesus was king of the Jews and priest after the order of Melchizedek? And regarding being rejected, you are wrong. We don't reject Jesus for what he was as a Jew but for what the NT and Christians in general claim he was.

When he presented himself on the day that the Passover lambs were chosen, he was examined for any "blemishes" for 4 days, and then rejected even though there were no "defects" in him.

Never happened. If you don't believe me, quote what you are saying.

Nevertheless, he was offered up as a sacrifice at the precise time that the High Priest was slitting the throat of the Passover lamb.

Jesus was not offered up as a sacrifice; he was crucified because his disciples were acclaiming him king of the Jews in Jerusalem, a Roman province at the time and was arrested for insurrection. Therefore, political charge. If you don't believe, read his verdict on the top of his cross commanded by Pilate. INRI (Luke 19:37-40)

Yeshua brought the people back to the TRUE Moses, as the religious leaders had departed very far from the true meaning of the Torah and created man-made "traditions" (ie: Mishna-Talmud).

That's not true because the Torah for us is superior to the Mishna or Talmud. No one observes the Law as the Jews do. Paul was the one who claimed that the Law had been abolished on the cross. (Ephesians 2:15)