The Wedding of Jesus

[erigby27]

Oh and if it were Jesus’ wedding, wouldn’t it say “On the third day Jesus was married at Cana”, not “On the third day a wedding took place at Cana” and Jesus was summoned? What a weird, roundabout, confusing way of writing, John!

 

[Ben_Masada]

I for one do Not believe that Jesus was married. Here are my reasons why.

I mean after all wouldn’t Jesus being married and having children, wouldn’t this have been something every Gospel writer would have written about?

I don’t think you would like to know. You are too faithful and mystically romantic. It could even be harmful to you.
But I have a question for you, so that you can elaborate in your mind if you could take a direct hit that Jesus was really married and had children. A double question. First, why did the headwaiter at that wedding addressed Jesus with the question why he had served the inferior wine in the beginning and reserved the best wine for the end. The second question is: Why would his mother complain to him that they were running out of wine if the person responsible to provide the wine was the Bridegroom? Get back to me with the answers and I’ll provide you with more till I am sure you can take the whole truth.

The OT fortells about Jesus Birth, His Life, Death and that he would be risen. Seems to me it would have mentioned that he was going to be married and have children, if this was truely going to happen.

There is nothing in the Tanach about Jesus but only as a result of assumptions.

Now I do believe that Jesus loved Mary M., but not in a romatic way. I also believe that Mary M. loved Jeus, again though not in a romatic way. Yet I do see a love between them, but this was a pure love. (not romatic, not sexually.)

Why? Do you think that we are the only ones to feel romanticly attracted to each other? Didn’t they also have hormones raving inside with eruptions of desires. Perhaps you think they were robots? Do you see? You are not ready for the truth.

Does it change who he was because he wasn’t married? Is it so hard to believe that he wasn’t?

Yes, it does change who he was. He would be much less of a Jewish person if he had failed to fufill that commandment. Besides, imagine a single Rabbi rooming around for almost four years in the company of 12 guys. Not too nice for his reputation. Believe me, his credibility would be enhanced tenfold for being married.

Let’s keep in mind one major thing. The Bible is all about Jesus,

Sorry, but this is the least thing to keep in mind because the Bible is all about Israel, the Jewish People and not Jesus on an individual basis. Unless you are referring only to the NT.

Ben:

 

[erigby27]

Why? Do you think that we are the only ones to feel romantic attracted to each other? Didn’t they also have hormones raving inside with eruptions of desires. Perhaps you think they were robots? Do you see? You are not ready for the truth.

I’m sorry that you are apparently so sex-crazed that you have no pure, deeply loving, but sexless relationships with your friends, teachers or mentors (of either the same or the opposite sex)!

 

[Ben_Masada]

Oh and if it were Jesus’ wedding, wouldn’t it say “On the third day Jesus was married at Cana”, not “On the third day a wedding took place at Cana” and Jesus was summoned? What a weird, roundabout, confusing way of writing, John!

The Fathers of the Church in 327 CE who selected the books to enter the Canon of the NT would have to answer your question for having editted that part.

Ben:

 

[erigby27]

The Fathers of the Church in 327 CE who selected the books to enter the Canon of the NT would have to answer your question for having editted that part.

Ben:

How convenient that you can use a text to support your opinion, but when it does not support your opinion, it has been “edited”.

Editing plays a huge role in any text. If an editor, however, edits so much so as to distort the meaning of the text, that means that the text is no longer reliable. Since this text is obviously unreliable (which you obviously believe since you aren’t reading what the text is saying, but are adding outside information), pray tell us what your source is!

 

[Ghoti]

So Ben, Jesus didn’t die and rise from the dead? Hmmmm

John Ch. 20: "26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, …

Didn’t you know? He used the secret passage from the Conservatory.

 

[erigby27]

Didn’t you know? He used the secret passage from the Conservatory.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I wonder why my Catholics friends here are not happy with the marriage of Jesus! Did he ever say that he won’t marry? Why make him a subordinate of Paul’s mythical religious philosophy? Jesus should be given a preference on Paul, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[Ben_Masada]

Mary said to Jesus “they have no more wine”. Had it been Jesus’ wedding, wouldn’t she have said “we have no more wine”?

Not necessarily. She was referring to the guests already complaining that they didn’t have wine.

Jesus responded, “Woman, why do you involve me?” Why would he even ask that if it were his own wedding?

This question is so full of suspiction and so ill-done that anyone who has a mind of his own can see that a Jewish loving son would not address to his mother that way. We can well see the hand of the editor interpolating that nasty reply.

As for verses 9 and 10, if the master (only the New American Standard version says “headwaiter”. every other version says “master” or “host” or some synonym thereof) had wanted to compliment Jesus on the wine, wouldn’t it say “he called Jesus aside”? But it doesn’t say “Jesus” it says “the bridgroom”. Jesus is referred to by name repeatedly in the rest of the story; only a few times is a pronoun even used to refer to him. Why would John use “the bridegroom” to refer to Jesus when he obviously likes to use Jesus’ name as much as possible (if it were anyone else’s name I would say “ad nauseum”)?

That’s the easiest of your questions. Simply because the author of this gospel was not John the Apostle, but one of the Gentiles disciple of Paul.

Oh and if, as you say, the bride’s parents were dead and BV Mary was running the show, who was the master of the wedding (because it would normally be the bride’s father, as I’m sure you are aware)? Or was Jesus the master and the bridegroom and the miracle-working guest (who was, as it was cleverly pointed out, invited to the wedding at Cana)?

Yes, as I am aware of. There is a difference between the mother of the Bride, who was the one running the inner show and the master whose function included also to keep the order. He didn’t have to be the father of the Bride. In my wedding for instance he was the brother of my wife. And I have a word about the term “invited” that you bring up with reference to Jesus. I understand you because you do not know about the nuances of Jewish morphologies.

The editor used the word “invited” but the real term is “called.” Jesus was called. The guests yes, were invited. During a traditional Jewish wedding, as it happned to mine, the Bridegroom is “called” to take his Bride. That’s a ceremonial calling, which means the responsibility over that woman to be handed over from the father unto the man to be married to her. Then, two witnesses take him to the Chupah. You know, the place where the couple will stand to be married by the Rabbi. I hope i helped you with this information.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi

I wonder why my Catholics friends here are not happy with the marriage of Jesus! Did he ever say that he won’t marry? Why make him a subordinate of Paul’s mythical religious philosophy? Jesus should be given a preference on Paul, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

Me too, Paarsurrey. Believe me, I do. This post of yours was a boost to my soul out of so many antagonists. Therefore, God bless you from Yerushalaim.

Ben:

 

[inJESUS]

As to the marriage feast at Cana - it could not have been Jesus’ wedding. The gospel according to John states:

Who has to be invited to his own wedding?

Paul

 

[inJESUS]

Yes Swariffin, some did, even from the Pharisees. Don’t forget that even some Pharisees had converted to the Sect of the Nazarenes, disciples of Jesus. Since they were authorities and very educated Jews, they were set as members of the Committee in the Nazarene headquarters in Jerusalem. The reference you can find in Acts 15:5. Today, we don’t have more Jews admitting that Jesus was a Rabbi because of what Christians have done to the Jews throughout History.

Ben:

we know by now that a rabbi was not obliged to be married, and that Jesus was not a rabbi in the formal sense, otherwise what do we understand by this:

Matthew 21:23 Now when He [Jesus] came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”

Rabbi was also a title of respect for sages/teachers of the law, it wasn’t only a matter of a religious post which was to become true after the destruction of the temple.

 

[ruslan]

:harp:

 

[Ben_Masada]

we know by now that a rabbi was not obliged to be married, and that Jesus was not a rabbi in the formal sense, otherwise what do we understand by this:

I agree with you that Jesus was not a Rabbi in the formal sense, but of what time, of that time or of today? Of course he was not a Rabbi in the formal sense of today. Everyone knows that. But in the formal sense of then, he was. If not, you have just discovered another contradiction in the NT. Why would the gospel writer call him a Rabbi or Mary Magdalene call him Raboni?

Matthew 21:23 Now when He [Jesus] came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?”

This sounds to me it was Paul whom the chief priests confronted him with that question. Jesus was not teaching anything against the Law or different from what the chief priests did. And whoever had something important to say in favor of Judaism was welcome to teach in the Temple. As you see, these guys who wrote the gospels had no knowledge of Jewish things.

Rabbi was also a title of respect for sages/teachers of the law, it wasn’t only a matter of a religious post which was to become true after the destruction of the temple.

What are you talking about! What changed after the destruction of the Temple was only an evolution in the method of teaching Torah with the establishment of Yeshivas and the spiritual influence of the Temple that was diversified and shared with the Synagogues.

Ben:

 

[inJESUS]

I agree with you that Jesus was not a Rabbi in the formal sense, but of what time, of that time or of today? Of course he was not a Rabbi in the formal sense of today. Everyone knows that. But in the formal sense of then, he was. If not, you have just discovered another contradiction in the NT. Why would the gospel writer call him a Rabbi or Mary Magdalene call him Raboni?

why don’t you give us a definition of a rabbi back then, from Jewish sources?

This sounds to me it was Paul whom the chief priests confronted him with that question.

 

[PapaSquash]

Now, let me bring to in return another part that you have reminded me so graciously: That was Jesus’ first miracle, wasn’t it? Yes.
Why then would Mary, his mother complain to him that the they had run out of wine? Why didn’t she go to the Bridegroom with the
complain, considering that the Bridegroom was the one in charge to providing the wine? Mary could not think of the possibility of a miracle because she had never seen one performed by Jesus.
.

There was that little business of virgin birth. It might have given her some idea that miracles weren’t out of the question…

 

[Ben_Masada]

How convenient that you can use a text to support your opinion, but when it does not support your opinion, it has been “edited”.

Editing plays a huge role in any text. If an editor, however, edits so much so as to distort the meaning of the text, that means that the text is no longer reliable. Since this text is obviously unreliable (which you obviously believe since you aren’t reading what the text is saying, but are adding outside information), pray tell us what your source is!

Listen Erigby, I don’t want to get into titles, but I am a Jewish man well aware of modern and ancient Judaism. What I am doing with the NT is trying to add some logic and put some order in so much confusion and lack of knowledge of Jewish things. No wonder the Gentiles who wrote the NT got into so many contradictions. I don’t need the human opinion of anyone else that you would only discard if I mentioned it here. My main source is the Bible itself. At least, this you can accept.

I can imagine the struggle the Fathers of the Church went through
to put some harmony into these writings in 327 CE when they had
to canonize the NT. They must have editted a whole lot to still leave for us to do such a hard job. If they had not tempered with Judaism to give rise to Christianity, we would not be having this conversation. Why don’t I have an issue with Islam or Buddhism?
Because in the formation of their religions they didn’t have to temper with Judaism.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

There was that little business of virgin birth. It might have given her some idea that miracles weren’t out of the question…

That’s sad because you have just uncovered another contradiction in the NT, because the writer of the fourth gospel says in John 2:11 that it was Jesus’ first miracle.

And about that little business of virgin birth, I am sure you don’t want to get into it. Too embarrassing, and too unfair to the family: Joseph, Mary and Jesus. They didn’t deserve what has come as a
result of such a false interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

Ben:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve been trying to follow all of this thread, though I may have missed some responses.

That said, it appears to me that Ben Masada has failed to answer the question of why Jesus would be invited to his own wedding? I would like to hear from Ben on this point.

Second, IMO, Ben has given an inadequate response to the problem posed by Mary’s observation, “THEY have no more wine.” He says Mary said “they” instead of “we” because the guests were complaining. However, if Jesus was the bridegroom, then it would make no sense for him to say, “What is that to you and me?”

Pawning this problem off on the bride or the bride’s parents does nothing to alleviate the social embarassment of having some of Jesus’ guests doing without. Moreover, while Ben suggests that Jesus’ response to his mother was “nasty”, Jesus’ callous indifference to his new bride’s predicament would have been nastier still.

That’s not how I would have reacted toward my young wife…would you?

 

[inJESUS]

Listen Erigby, I don’t want to get into titles, but I am a Jewish man well aware of modern and ancient Judaism.

yet you said a rabbi was obliged to get married and not getting married breaks a commandmant, both of which are not true.