Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[smitten508]

To say I have called Christ a liar is redundant to everything you seem to stand for. I didn't call Christ or sacred scripture a liar, you have. Christ came to fulfill the law, he also stated that the WHOLE of the law was to love God and love fellow man as you do yourself. I think you are confusing the jot and tittle of the mosaic law with the Spirit of the law. Almighty God doesn't give "rules" to break or not break, He gave us rules to introduce His glory and righteousness, in order that we recognize our own bloodguilt. The rationale you follow reeks of pharisee and saducee garbage. That is EXACTLY the kind of mindset that God Almighty came to do away with when Christ was sent among us.

 

[Ben Masada]

Debate does not depend upon faith. It depends upon scholarship and evidence. You have no evidence to adequately prove your premise.:areyoucra

And do you have any to refute what I say?

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't think Paul ever accused Jesus of not being Jewish. Paul doesn't need to destroy Judaism in order to propagate Xy. Here you go with your wild accusations again, which you cannot support with reasonable scholarship.

Matthew 5:17-19 does not say that Jesus "had come to keep and observe all the Laws of the Jews down to the letter and eve to dot of the letter, to warn us to do the same and to teach it without slightest change." Mathew 5:17-19 is taken out of context. Look at Matt. 23. Matthew's agenda is not the "keeping of the Law." Matthew isn't "anti-Jew." He's "anti-establishment." In 23, he "woes" the establishment -- not Jews in general. The thrust of Matt. is the passing of the mantle from the establishment to the commoner. The commoners are keeping the Law by following Jesus; not the establishment by observing the picayune details.

I think you are reading from a different version of the NT. Here is what I have here: "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven." If this means that Jesus fulfilled and we no longer need to, I rest my case. You argue just for the sake of arguing.

 

[sojourner]

And do you have any to refute what I say?

I'm not the one wit the premise. My point is that you don't have any real proof to back up your premise. My proof of that is just that: Lack of evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I think you are reading from a different version of the NT. Here is what I have here: "Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven." If this means that Jesus fulfilled and we no longer need to, I rest my case. You argue just for the sake of arguing.

NO. My point is that we have to understand what Matthew means by "breaking the commandment." For Matthew, that would be doing what the religious leaders do: walking over people just to "keep the Law." We "keep the Law" by following Jesus and the example he set for us.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not the one wit the premise. My point is that you don't have any real proof to back up your premise. My proof of that is just that: Lack of evidence.

Forgive me but I can't help getting rid of the thoutht that you are plagued by the disease of jealousy. You never bring a contribution but the same old broken record that I can't prove anything I say, even if I pinpoint my posts with Scriptural quotations. Imagine if I mentioned here the names of nine Gentiles who have embraced Judaism as a result of my work. You would explode alive.

 

[Ben Masada]

NO. My point is that we have to understand what Matthew means by "breaking the commandment." For Matthew, that would be doing what the religious leaders do: walking over people just to "keep the Law." We "keep the Law" by following Jesus and the example he set for us.

Now, your accusation is that we keep the Law by walking over people, and you keep the Law by following Jesus. This is the most laughable statement I have ever heard. Now, it's my turn to ask for a Scriptural evidence for both methods. Can you provide me with? You can't, because those words came out of a hateful heart.

 

[sojourner]

Forgive me but I can't help getting rid of the thoutht that you are plagued by the disease of jealousy. You never bring a contribution but the same old broken record that I can't prove anything I say, even if I pinpoint my posts with Scriptural quotations. Imagine if I mentioned here the names of nine Gentiles who have embraced Judaism as a result of my work. You would explode alive.

proof-texting does not = proof.

NO, I would say that they've been misled, and when they find out, they're going to be hurt.

 

[sojourner]

Now, your accusation is that we keep the Law by walking over people, and you keep the Law by following Jesus. This is the most laughable statement I have ever heard. Now, it's my turn to ask for a Scriptural evidence for both methods. Can you provide me with? You can't, because those words came out of a hateful heart.

No, I'm not saying that you keep the Law by walking over people. I said that it was more important for the religious authorities, who were presented in the NT, to keep the Law than it was for them to be concerned about the welfare of individuals. I do claim that we keep the Law by following Jesus, who showed us (by his example) that the reason we keep the Law is love and compassion -- not our own righteousness.

 

[Ben Masada]

proof-texting does not = proof.

NO, I would say that they've been misled, and when they find out, they're going to be hurt.

How could one be hurt by joining the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism? You can't deny that, can you? Unless the blinders are really tight.

 

[Ben Masada]

No, I'm not saying that you keep the Law by walking over people. I said that it was more important for the religious authorities, who were presented in the NT, to keep the Law than it was for them to be concerned about the welfare of individuals. I do claim that we keep the Law by following Jesus, who showed us (by his example) that the reason we keep the Law is love and compassion -- not our own righteousness.

I'll tell you the reason for your claim to keep the Law. It's the same as Paul's to have faith: The resurrection of the dead. Didn't he say that if the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die? If he had ever got sure that there was no resurrection, he would rather make a carnival out of his life and then die. Is it what you call unconditional reason to keep the Law? Have mercy!(I Cor. 15:32)

 

[sojourner]

How could one be hurt by joining the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism? You can't deny that, can you? Unless the blinders are really tight.

No one could be hurt by becoming Jewish. But people who were otherwise Xians might be hurt by converting under the false information you have given them.

 

[sojourner]

I'll tell you the reason for your claim to keep the Law. It's the same as Paul's to have faith: The resurrection of the dead. Didn't he say that if the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die? If he had ever got sure that there was no resurrection, he would rather make a carnival out of his life and then die. Is it what you call unconditional reason to keep the Law? Have mercy!(I Cor. 15:32)

I don't need internet guidance to understand my spiritual praxis. Your misinformation about Paul and your abysmal exegesis only serve to confirm that assertion.

 

[Ben Masada]

No one could be hurt by becoming Jewish. But people who were otherwise Xians might be hurt by converting under the false information you have given them.

False information that you cannot refute. If my information about Judaism is false, Jesus lived a false Judaism for 33 years of his life.

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't need internet guidance to understand my spiritual praxis. Your misinformation about Paul and your abysmal exegesis only serve to confirm that assertion.

The object of this thread is not about Paul but about being Mary Magdalene the same as Mary of Bethany. And both of them one only Mary who was married to Jesus. Either that or Jesus was not Jewish.

 

[sojourner]

False information that you cannot refute. If my information about Judaism is false, Jesus lived a false Judaism for 33 years of his life.

Right back at you: False information that you cannot prove. Your information does not particularly inform us about Jesus' status as a Jew.

 

[gnostic]

I would have to say that I would agree with sojourner on this, Ben.

I am neither Jewish nor Christian.

You're only basing interpretations of the gospels and assertions that Mary Magdalene is the same as Mary of Bethany, but you can't prove it literally and explicitly.

And it is the same in regard to your claim that Jesus and Mary were husband and wife, other than through interpretation; but nothing explicitly and literally stated that they were married.

 

[gnostic]

As to the Wedding in Cana, where you state that it is Jesus marriage, because of Jesus and his mother's involvement.

Now, this is just speculation, just like your claim, that the wedding could be one of Jesus' siblings' wedding, instead of his own. The bible do mention elsewhere that Jesus have brothers (who were named) and sisters (who were unnamed). However, the bride and groom was never named, so my claim is just as weak as yours, but my claim does and could explain why Mary mother of Jesus being concerned about the shortage of wine.

 

[Ben Masada]

Right back at you: False information that you cannot prove. Your information does not particularly inform us about Jesus' status as a Jew.

Can you prove that Jesus was a Jew? Let me hear about your bogus wisdom.

 

[Ben Masada]

I would have to say that I would agree with sojourner on this, Ben.

I am neither Jewish nor Christian.

You're only basing interpretations of the gospels and assertions that Mary Magdalene is the same as Mary of Bethany, but you can't prove it literally and explicitly.

And it is the same in regard to your claim that Jesus and Mary were husband and wife, other than through interpretation; but nothing explicitly and literally stated that they were married.

You can't accept my assertions as proof because you are coming from a different culture in the hope that you can dictate how Judaism is supposed to run. Reality is quite different.