The Wedding of Jesus

[S_J_Thaikattil]

In the mystical order, the wedding of Cana was the wedding of the New Adam and New Eve, Jesus and Mary.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1804109&postcount=3

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Don’t forget your mention of Jesus and Mary as the New Adam and New Eve was in connection with a relationship between them, because it followed a comment from PaarSurrey about Jesus and His wives. Here the talk is about the relationship of Jesus to the Church, the body of believers, and of Mary to the body of believers.

You sound very, very confused. Please don’t try understanding my previous post, apparently, its over your head.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

You sound very, very confused. Please don’t try understanding my previous post, apparently, its over your head.

Yes, I’m confused by heretics. Wedding of Mother and Son, Jesus and Mary, the New Adam and New Eve, at Cana, is very much over my head.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, I’m confused by heretics. Wedding of Mother and Son, Jesus and Mary, the New Adam and New Eve, at Cana, is very confusing.

As I said before, you just don’t get it.

Again, are you calling me a heretic? Be a man and answer the question.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

As I said before, you just don’t get it.

Again, are you calling me a heretic? Be a man and answer the question.

Yes, I’m calling you a heretic. And I call you so in as manly a fashion as is possible for a woman to do.

 

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1804109&postcount=3
Discussion On the Gospel for Sunday, Jan. 14

In Jewish tradition, marriages lasted 7 days (and this makes sense since to make a COVENANT with someone, in Hebrew, the word, literally, is you seven-yourself, not to mention that 7 is the number of the covenant).

On the 7th day, the bridegroom would enter into this tent where the woman would be vieled. The bridgegroom will UNVIEL (in Greek the word Revelation means the unvieling) her and connsumate the marriage. This being said, let us examine the mystery of the Wedding at Cana.

John 1:29:

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, I’m confused by heretics. Wedding of Mother and Son, Jesus and Mary, the New Adam and New Eve, at Cana, is very much over my head.

Jesus and Mary as
Mother and Son = Natural Order

Jesus and Mary as
New Adam and New Eve = Spiritual Order

In the natural order, Adam and Eve were married.
in the *spiritual order, *the New Adam and New Eve are also married.

I forgive you for your insults by insinuating I’m a heretic. Good night ma’am.

 

[paarsurrey]

As I said before, you just don’t get it.

Again, are you calling me a heretic? Be a man and answer the question.

Hi

Please don’t mind it and remain cool. It is a fashion here; everybody calls here others a heretic, except me of course. Peace

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Jesus and Mary as
Mother and Son = Natural Order

Jesus and Mary as
New Adam and New Eve = Spiritual Order

In the natural order, Adam and Eve were married.
in the *spiritual order, *the New Adam and New Eve are also married.

I forgive you for your insults by insinuating I’m a heretic. Good night ma’am.

Maybe you have forgotten that the discussion was about the wedding in Cana, to which Jesus and Mary were invited, with two persons claiming it was the wedding of Jesus Himself? And it was in keeping with the title of thread: The Wedding of Jesus. It was not a high flown theological interpretation of a spiritual concept, as is the case when New Adam is discusssed.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Hi

Please don’t mind it and remain cool. It is a fashion here; everybody calls here others a heretic, except me of course. Peace

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

PaarSurrey, you are a cool heretic on a Catholic blog spouting fiction which you say is Islamic, but which no one has read in the Quran, leave alone in the New Testament.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi

Sorry, I didn’t know that LilyM was to be the first in your new thread; not knowingly I posted earlier. Nevermind, her posts whenever she writes should be considered with preference over me. I am not jealous of her.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

Dear Paarsurrey, you have absolutely no reason to get jealous. I don’t miss a post of yours. We are almost of the
same mind. It happens that LilyM just asked me a question which coincided with a post I was just about to post. You got it first, and I am not surprised; and in fact, happy to share it with you.

A blessing to you from Yerushalaim.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi

Ben Masada, need not attempt at that. May be LilyM does it sometimes; her fellow religionists I am told are already practicing it in the Philipines, and they survive, I think.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

No, I would never try such a thing. I am not too friendly with Stigmata. A few years ago I read a biography of Francis of Assissi, and I got some information about Stigmata, as this Fransciscan Friar had got them. Something weird!

Ben:

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear Paarsurrey, you have absolutely no reason to get jealous. I don’t miss a post of yours. We are almost of the
same mind. It happens that LilyM just asked me a question which coincided with a post I was just about to post. You got it first, and I am not surprised; and in fact, happy to share it with you.

A blessing to you from Yerushalaim.

Ben:

I have been surprised by that claim for I have read it elsewhere too that Jews have more in common with Muslims than with Christians. So why is there so much conflict in the Middle East I wonder. Can someone enlighten me? Ben? PaarSurrey? (OK. I am prepared to read fiction just this one more time.)

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;4827873:

S J Thaikattil;4827798:

Ben, there is a reason why I’m a Christian.

[Ben, there is such a thing as faith based on reason.

And you know what Apostle Thomas preached in Edessa and India? How pray?

Considering that Thomas was a Nazarene, he preached about the teachings of Jesus, a form of awakening of
the Jewish spirit according to the Law. That’s why their converts were staunch defenders of the Law. Read Acts 21:20)

(quote]My faithful brain does not accept Christianity based on romantic notions but on hard facts.

Please, share with me these “hard facts.” That’s what I have been after and almost everyone has only nonsense to share.

Apostle Thomas I call Thomas the Scientist, not Thomas the Doubter. A scientist believes when the evidence is presented, that is what Apostle Thomas did when Jesus presented the evidence of His Resurrection. To believe that does not require blind faith, merely trust that Apostle Thomas was not a liar.

Sorry but you are the personification of contradiction. You speak of being scientist, to connect faith with reason, to speak of evidences. And where on earth, that wounds in a body are evidences of resurrection? Those wounds as Luke says in Acts 1:3 were evidences of Jesus’ suffering and not of resurrection. And yes, you might be right, but that Jesus was resuscitated and not resurrected.

Ben:

[/QUOTE]

 

[ronyodish]

Chaldean Rite and S J Thaikattil,

I think the misunderstanding between you both was based on which interpretive sense you were using for the Wedding at Cana text. CR is looking at the spiritual sense of interpretation, whereas SJ is looking at the literal sense of interpretation.

This thread originally was based on the fictional assumption or error of Ben Masada and later paarsurrey on the Wedding of Cana as being literally interpreted to mean the physical natural wedding between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This is the original error of this thread, to which Catholics here were trying to rebut.

By the way, CR is not a heretic because he’s not saying that Jesus literally and physically married His mother Mary and slept with her as His wife, that is, naturally. He’s using a spiritual interpretation that is allowed among other allowable interpretations of the text.

The confusion comes in, in that, everyone else like SJ was looking at the literal interpretation of the text in order to rebut the error of Ben Masada and paarsurrey, and when a spiritual interpretation was brought up, the confusion unfortunately occurred.

So, SJ is right and CR is right, depending on which sense of interpretation one is using.

By the way, I wrote a paper for my university theology class that touched a little bit on this topic, using the great marital text of Ephesians 5 as a framework.

In the Chaldean Catholic Church of the East, there is a poem that is sung, and it goes like this:

---

In the name of the Father, and of the Son,
And of the life giving Holy Spirit,
O Three Qnome is One Kyana,
Assist your servant.

Help me O Father to sing,
To honor Your Daughter,
To thank the Mother of Your Son,
And to tell about the Bride of Your Spirit.​

Why do I bring up this poem? It highlights the traditional understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary in relation to the Holy Trinity.

She is traditionally called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, but since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ, then in this sense one can see how typologies like New Adam and New Eve can work in the spiritual sense as a reference between Jesus and Mary, that is, the Spirit of Jesus and the soul of Mary.

Anyways, this sort of theological and spiritual ascension is beyond the grasp of Jews and Muslims, and so beyond the grasp of this thread.

God bless,

Rony

 

[paarsurrey]

This thread originally was based on the fictional assumption or error of Ben Masada and later paarsurrey on the Wedding of Cana as being literally interpreted to mean the physical natural wedding between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This is the original error of this thread, to which Catholics here were trying to rebut.

Hi

I was reading the logical and reasonable posts of friend Ben Masada. I think I have not mentioned yet that I believe the marriage of Jesus with Mary Magdalene did or did not happen; though the possiblity perhaps is there.

This is just to clarify.

The issue rests with the Catholics; the onus of giving proof rests with the Catholics, in my opinion. If our Catholic friends believe that Jesus was one of the perfect men; then they shall have to prove that Jesus did marry and had children. I see that our friend Ben Masada is , in my opinion, in fact helping our Catholic friends that Jesus did marry; though he has not yet mentioned that they had any children also.

i love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[adrift]

Hi

When our Catholic friends are left with no rational argument then they have to hide behind the Roman constable and the Roman expertise, in my opinion. If one thinks intently one would realize that the whole Catholic belief rests on the feeble shoulders of a Roman constable. I think it was not fair for Paul to base his faith on shoulders of this poor constable, in my opinion. Well Paul is Paul; a clever smart guy, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

You do realize that this post of yours makes no sense?

Is that what you mean by left with no rational argument? The OP has been more than answered. Or is it him that you mean does not have a rational argument? He makes claims that are historically inaccurate as you do. If we are going to talk about irrational,

I think Ben Masada has raised some valid issues; which our Catholic friends need to answer reasonably and logically with sound arguments from history; not their own mytholigical tradition, in my opinion. Peace

They have been answered but because of your belief in a fiction you are unable to see it. But don’t you feel hypocritical first saying

sound arguments from history

And when someone give sound history you say.

they have to hide behind the Roman constable and the Roman expertise,

No one is hiding To correct misinformation is keeping the truth in the conversation.

Then the Clergy is wrong to put the Gospel of Matthew in the beginning of the Bible, if he was not an eye-witness as you say. Then why have Matthew in the first place if he was not an eye-witness; then he is good for nothing, in my opinion.

The order was based on what was written first not who was at the cross. He had access to people who were eyewitnesses. Do you know how much history is written by eye witnesses? This is a dodge and you should be ashamed in raising it.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I take refuge in GodAllahYHWH;**Chaldean Rite **is no different, I think all Christians without realizing, logically mean the same thing.

They believe that Jesus was from the beginning a god; it is only Paul’s strange philosophy that invented a Catholic-father-god, just to avoid the shame involved, in my opinion. Kindly think; what is a begotten Son; if Jesus was before Mary. The same what our friend **Chaldean Rite **has said and you object to.

I don’t believe in such odd things, sorry, no compulsion.

i love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

Neither does the Christian believe that Jesus = God, God marrying Mary, and Jesus marrying Mary. Only the ignorance would say so. Please provide your proof that Trinity is originated from Paul, and please don’t run away.

 

[swariffin]

Hi

I was reading the logical and reasonable posts of friend Ben Masada. I think I have not mentioned yet that I believe the marriage of Jesus with Mary Magdalene did or did not happen; though the possiblity perhaps is there.

This is just to clarify.

The issue rests with the Catholics; the onus of giving proof rests with the Catholics, in my opinion. If our Catholic friends believe that Jesus was one of the perfect men; then they shall have to prove that Jesus did marry and had children. I see that our friend Ben Masada is , in my opinion, in fact helping our Catholic friends that Jesus did marry; though he has not yet mentioned that they had any children also.

i love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

Perhaps you can summarize Ben’s opinion and yours for me. This thread is already too long for me to read all of the postings. I am a kind of late of paying attention on this thread. Ben, do you mind that we go back to your OP? I am interested in engaging your thread.

 

[adrift]

The issue rests with the Catholics; the onus of giving proof rests with the Catholics, in my opinion. If our Catholic friends believe that Jesus was one of the perfect men; then they shall have to prove that Jesus did marry and had children. I see that our friend Ben Masada is , in my opinion, in fact helping our Catholic friends that Jesus did marry; though he has not yet mentioned that they had any children also.

i love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

We believe Jesus is God not just a perfect man. It is your belief that a man who is perfect must be married. There has only been one perfect man, that being Jesus. He was not married therefor your assertion that a perfect man is married is unfounded.