Behold, It Was Leah!

Jacob worked 14 years for Rachel. The first seven in the expectation of the end, and the next seven in the frustration of the beginning.

Jacob had never been more disappointed in the whole of his life, as he became aware that he was bound by the law of the land, that a younger daughter could never marry ahead of her older sibling.

At the day of Jacob’s payment for half the term, he was turned into a drunk man in order to be more easily cheated into getting the wrong good, till he could no longer return it.

Then, the father brought a veiled lady into Jacob’s tent at night, and in the morning, Behold, it was Leah!

The only compensation, if we can call it compensation, is that for the one he worked two terms, he came out of Paddan Aram with four.

Now, for half of seven, but as worthy as 14, Jesus spent in the company of his beloved, whom he dispensed so much love and was dispensed perhaps even more in return, he went afterwards to the cross, and in the height of his torments, as he opened his agonizing
eyes to look around, Behold, it was John, who had made to be the beloved disciple.

There is a huge difference here though. In Paddan Aram, Jacob was the only one
cheated by Laban. On the Calvary, the one cheated was Christianity by the Church. Thanks to Mark 14:50, ALL the disciples had fled to hide themselves behind locked doors for fear that the Romans would come for them too.

Therefore, Love had prevailed, because the real beloved disciple was the one there at locked arms with Jesus’ mother, crying before the cross.

The reason for Laban to cheat on Jacob was a stupid pagan law. What was the reason for the Church to cheat on Christianity? Why would the Church replace Mary Magdalene with John as Jesus’ beloved disciple, her history of prior to meeting Jesus or the Pauline attitude with regards to women?

“A man is better off having no relation with a a woman.” And “If you are free of a wife, do not go in search of one.” (I Cor. 7:1,27)

In “Behold, it was Leah,” only one man was misled into believing he was having Rachel. In “Behold, it was John,” millions today have become unable to acknowledge that Jesus could have loved Mary.

If we think that Laban was cruel, the attrocities of the Church started at the Calvary.


**Ben, wonderful, good informatiom. Thanks. You being a Jew could tell us more about Jesus because he was a Jew. I was always wondering how could any disciple be present at Calvary when it is written that all disciples had fled the scene.

It is sure that John, if he was a disciple, could never be present at the sight of the Crucifixion. But a wife could be present, and the mother too. Nobody could stop them.

I felt your desire to claim Jesus for the Jews was a good effort. that is where Jesus belonged. Keep trying. I support you in your rational claims. But my English is very poor. I cannot always understand the crypted things. **

John 19:25-27

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26* When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Mary Magdala is a son? :rolleyes:

John 20:1-2

1* Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

She ran and told herself? :rolleyes:

Thanks for your vote of confidence. This post of yours was
like a glass of fresh water where I find around only vinegar.

I think the OP has been reading too much Dan Brown and not enough Matthew ,Mark Luke and John.

The angry Jew and the heretical Muslim are forming an alliance.

Run and hide…all facts will have no sway in their posts

Was there ever an alliance between Isaac and Ishmael? A reprieve is more likely. Besides, I am not an angry Jew, but a champion for the Faith of Jesus, which was Judaism.

I am not sure that Isaac and Ishmael ever met as adults…in fact, Isaac may not have remmembered him at all

**You will be sure today. As children, they used to play together until Sara asked Abraham to get Ishmael away from the Land of Canaan, because he was not supposed to share the inheritance of the Land with Isaac. That’s in Genesis 21:9,10.

Then, when Abraham passed away, both Isaac and Ishmael were together to bury him in the Cave of Machpelah. That’s in Genesis 25:9.


**You did not understand the thread. Jesus’ beloved disciple could not be John in spite of all the other disciples. Jesus loved all the disciples equally. How was John special to draw that title of beloved. Only Mary qualified. Sometimes a little logic helps a lot.

Then, you say that she ran and told herself. Let me ask you what did she tell and to whom? The answer is in Luke 24:1-11. She was together with some other women who told the Apostles that Jesus had resurrected. Do you remember the reaction of the disciples? They considered their report nonsense and an idle tale. Do you know why? Because they had never heard from the lips of Jesus about such a thing. There is no way to see their reaction to the tale of the women.


**All that shows that Ralph and company do not read the scripture. I knew that Ishmael the elder brother of Issac was with Issac when Abraham died. Both brothers buried Abraham together. But Ralph says:

I am not sure that Isaac and Ishmael ever met as adults…in fact, Isaac may not have remmembered him at all **

Otherwise too, even if Sarai wished that Ishmael should not inherit (land) with Issac. That I feel is a blame on that good lady. There was plenty of land to share. No shortage of any land. Both the brothers were blessed by God. The Father looked after the land matter very wisely. He settled both brothers, Ishmael and Issac, far apart in different lands. That was very wise of him.

There was no dispute or disagreement. They were all good people, loving God Almighty. All well set in service of God.

The Catholics may not be disturbed by a Muslim supporting a Jew or a christian. I need not oppose the truth. That I do not. So catholics can relax.

Thanks to Mark 14:50, ALL the disciples had fled to hide themselves behind locked doors for fear that the Romans would come for them too.

Read the Gospels again. It was NOT fear of the Romans that made the disciples lock the doors.

Maybe politically incorrect, but the Gospels say what they say.

Thanks for correcting me. I did not recall that passage.

Unlike some on here, my pride does not prevent me from saying when I am wrong.

Now, both of you,
AT NO POINT does it say that JEsus married. Period. the Disciple that Jesus loved is established to be John in more than one way. All that you are doing is buying into modern revisionist anti-Christian history

**I am not buying into any modern revisionist. The store I buy my goods is called NT, an epic treatise of contradictions. Mark 14:50 says clearly that when Jesus was arrested ALL his disciples deserted him and fled. Later they were found behind locked doors for fear of being arrested too. That’s where I buy what I know. For the replacement of Mary Magdalene with John as Jesus beloved disciple, one does not need to be a genius to know that the hand of the Church is behind this conspiracy. But I understand you. I am aware of the works of faith.

Ben: **

First you say you are not buying into “modern revisionist”. Then you quote from a modern revisionist book.

My friend, you need better sources. If you want to bash the Catholic Church and the Christian religion, go ahead. But at least stick with facts and truth. When you quote crackpots and rely on authors who openly lie and provide false information, your criticisms are, therefore, wholly without merit.

In short, you have been lied to on these issues. If you are willing to learn the truth, by all means ask. If you just want to beat your chest and scold, then goodbye.

You are ignoring the obvious point. In Mark 14.50 all the disciples fled. Okay, that is clear. However, where is St. Peter in Mark 14.66? He is in the court below the trial. He obviously stopped his flight by this time. What you are doing is assuming that the disciples having fled means that they did so continuously until after the crucifixion. Where is that even implied in Mark 14.50? They fled, but then they stopped fleeing, and St. John clearly did so in time to be at the crucifixion as the scriptures clearly attest.

Another problem with your understanding is that it is self-contradicting. You are saying that St. Mary Magdalen is the beloved disciple, and she was at the crucifixion and not St. John. Why? Because all the disciples fled, and were not there. However, you are saying that she is the beloved disciple, which means she fled too. So, if St. John was not there, then neither could St. Mary Magdalen have been.

I may get attacked by saying this, and if I do, it is worth it. This is one of the most closely guarded secrets of Catholicism…Get ready, read fast for this thread will not be on here long…

There is no logical reason for the Church to hide the fact that Jesus was married!!!

There it is!!!

The EO Church allows married priests, and Rome did as well for centuries!!!

That is right. This is not covered up because of the celebate priest issue…

The Evangelist is referring to himself throughout the Gospel.

John Chapter 21

[quote]20 Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following

, who also leaned on his breast at supper and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? 21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow thou me. 23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? 24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.Also see John 13:23 & 21:7

Only in John’s Gospel is the phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved " found. Mark 12:7 makes reference to the phrase in a parable Jesus tells them, and John 19:26 names the witnesses at the foot of the Cross, except he doesn’t name himself because he was there.

** Are you sure the Evangelist is referring to himself throughout the gospel? That’s great! Does it mean he was the one who anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with his hair?


I don’t recall that the person who anointed our Lord’s feet being described as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Is that what you are suggesting?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit