The Wedding of Jesus

[LilyM]

That would be your implication concerning Jesus being forgetful and boringly repetitive, not mine. However, this does not prove me wrong yet. John 13: 1, 2 are clear. What took place in this chapter is not the “Last Supper” since that was the “feast of Passover” and in John 13, it says BEFORE.

I know a lot of people who are forgetful and/or repetitive. Just because they say something on one day and then something on the next does not mean those 2 days equal the same day simply because the same thing was said.

Utter rot. The Son of God is neither forgetful nor needs to repeat His prophecies. How many other prophecies are uttered more than once in the whole of scripture? Not a single one, people tend to pay attention enough the first time.

Fact is, there was only one Supper - in both Gospels it occurs very shortly prior to Jesus’ betrayal and arrest. If there were days in between Luke’s supper and Jesus’ betrayal (and an extra highly significant supper in between) then one or other evangelist would have mentioned BOTH suppers rather than ignoring one at the expense of the other.

 

[simplynoone]

Utter rot. The Son of God is neither forgetful nor needs to repeat His prophecies.

You are the one who made that implication, not me. I would guess that he repeated himself for a reason, though I do not know that purpose. Even if he did forget and/or repeat, this is not a sin, so why the offense? He was a man. You set him too high on a pedestal (obviously and this called idolatry; something he did not once condone). No wonder no one wants to read what what he said in his teachings. How COULD you look to him as an example if he were so perfect? What kind of example is that? If I thought he was as perfect as the rest of you, I would feel even MORE like a failure in my life. Point is, he made mistakes… he was human was he not? But he kept on going, giving me reason to see his teachings as something applicable to my own life.

 

[LilyM]

You are the one who made that implication, not me. I would guess that he repeated himself for a reason, though I do not know that purpose. Even if he did forget and/or repeat, this is not a sin, so why the offense? He was a man. You set him too high on a pedestal (obviously and this called idolatry; something he did not once condone). No one wonder no one wants to read what what he said in his teachings. How COULD you look to him as an example if he were so perfect? What kind of example is that? If I thought he was as perfect as the rest of you, I would feel even MORE like a failure in my life. Point is, he made mistakes… he was human was he not? But he kept on going, giving me reason to see his teachings as something applicable to my own life.

What, exactly, is too high a pedestal for God, please do tell? How can one commit the sin of idolatry in worshipping the one true God?

Jesus was God - of course worshipping Him as such is not idolatry. He told us ALL to be perfect - you suggesting He wasn’t perfect Himself and thus gave us an impossible command? It’s not depressing to strive for perfection - since He said it, we can achieve it. It’s reason for hope.

Tell me, how can perfection co-exist with mistakes?

 

[simplynoone]

What, exactly, is too high a pedestal for God, please do tell? How can one commit the sin of idolatry in worshipping the one true God?

Jesus was God - of course worshipping Him as such is not idolatry. He told us ALL to be perfect - you suggesting He wasn’t perfect Himself and thus gave us an impossible command? It’s not depressing to strive for perfection - since He said it, we can achieve it. It’s reason for hope.

Tell me, how can perfection co-exist with mistakes?

Well, if you would pay any attention to what Jesus said, he made it clear he was NOT God and therefore not subject to being perfect.

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Mark 12: 29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by LilyM:
Utter rot. The Son of God is neither forgetful nor needs to repeat His prophecies

Point is, he (i.e.,Jesus-paarsurrey) made mistakes… he was human was he not? But he kept on going, giving me reason to see his teachings as something applicable to my own life.

Hi

I agree with you.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

 

[LilyM]

Well, if you would pay any attention to what Jesus said, he made it clear he was NOT God and therefore not subject to being perfect.

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Mark 12: 29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord

Aah, so you’re Jewish or Muslim or something (makes sense). I suppose subtlety of any kind is completely lost on you, but I will nonetheless try to explain.

Jesus was humble enough not to leap around saying ‘Yahoo, I am God’. Nonetheless by comments such as the above He made clear, but in a clever and subtle way, that He is God. Note Jesus didn’t deny being good - instead in this passage He was claiming goodness as an attribute of God - and of Himself as well, He being God.

And although lost on you, subtle comments like the above were perfectly clearly understood by the Sanhedrin at his trial - they certainly understood His admission to being the Son of God as a blasphemous claim to divinity - otherwise no grounds to condemn Him, no? And of all times, when you’re on trial for your life for claiming to be God, that’s the one time you’ll deny having said any such thing unless you believe it yourself, no?

 

[simplynoone]

Aah, so you’re Jewish or Muslim or something (makes sense). I suppose subtlety of any kind is completely lost on you, but I will nonetheless try to explain.

Jesus was humble enough not to leap around saying ‘Yahoo, I am God’. Nonetheless by comments such as the above He made clear, but in a clever and subtle way, that He is God. Note Jesus didn’t deny being good - instead in this passage He was claiming goodness as an attribute of God - and of Himself as well, He being God.

And although lost on you, subtle comments like the above were perfectly clearly understood by the Sanhedrin at his trial - they certainly understood His admission to being the Son of God as a blasphemous claim to divinity - otherwise no grounds to condemn Him, no? And of all times, when you’re on trial for your life for claiming to be God, that’s the one time you’ll deny having said any such thing unless you believe it yourself, no?

I am not Jewish, muslim, christian, Buddhist, etc. I belong to nothing. Though I would like to relate to something, it has not happened for me yet.

 

[planten]

Aah, so you’re Jewish or Muslim or something (makes sense). I suppose subtlety of any kind is completely lost on you, but I will nonetheless try to explain.

Jesus was humble enough not to leap around saying ‘Yahoo, I am God’. Nonetheless by comments such as the above He made clear, but in a clever and subtle way, that He is God. Note Jesus didn’t deny being good - instead in this passage He was claiming goodness as an attribute of God - and of Himself as well, He being God.

And although lost on you, subtle comments like the above were perfectly clearly understood by the Sanhedrin at his trial - they certainly understood His admission to being the Son of God as a blasphemous claim to divinity - otherwise no grounds to condemn Him, no? And of all times, when you’re on trial for your life for claiming to be God, that’s the one time you’ll deny having said any such thing unless you believe it yourself, no?

**LilyM, your argument is not valid. Jesus knew he was God yet he was humble enough not to tell every one openly. That would be very bad of Jesus in my opinion. To hide his identity was not good.

If he mentioned it casually (in secret) that would also not be good. It was such a major diversion from the jewish faith by a Jew (Jesus) that it was necessary for Jesus to preach it loud and clear. Why hide it, in my opinion.

Being a son of God could be tolerable because there were other people also called sons of God by way of Love only. Even he could be called the God on Earth symbolically, in my opinion. But He could not really call himself The God in reality.

The Sanhidren is no truth. They were looking for any excuse to put their hands on Jesus. Do you believe they were right? I hope not, in my opinion. Please forget the godhead of Jesus. It is nowwhere. It is invented by some one and taken to extra ordinary heights by the others. Just be calm and bring that down please. Love.**

 

[simplynoone]

Aah, so you’re Jewish or Muslim or something (makes sense). I suppose subtlety of any kind is completely lost on you, but I will nonetheless try to explain.

Jesus was humble enough not to leap around saying ‘Yahoo, I am God’. Nonetheless by comments such as the above He made clear, but in a clever and subtle way, that He is God. Note Jesus didn’t deny being good - instead in this passage He was claiming goodness as an attribute of God - and of Himself as well, He being God.

And although lost on you, subtle comments like the above were perfectly clearly understood by the Sanhedrin at his trial - they certainly understood His admission to being the Son of God as a blasphemous claim to divinity - otherwise no grounds to condemn Him, no? And of all times, when you’re on trial for your life for claiming to be God, that’s the one time you’ll deny having said any such thing unless you believe it yourself, no?

You know, I was not going to comment any further, but I could not let go of a great point you have actually made.

You are right. Subtlety is lost on me in the sense that you are speaking of. The definition that fits what you are describing is crafty or sly or devious. I learned well when I was young that I would not be successful at lying. I tried it and my conscience bore down on me so hard that never did it fail, I would end up confessing. After so many times of the embarrassment of having to confess not ONLY that I wronged (mostly my parents), but I had even been deceitful about it, I learned that it was easier to just be straightforward in the first place or to watch my interactions with others and my actions altogether.

Here’s the thing, the lesson of what you said above has VERY recently played out for me; yet it goes deeper in the scenario that you are suggesting.

If Jesus was indeed here, as God, and yet he left us without knowing for sure because he wanted to be subtle about it and such a thing as our salvation rests upon guessing which half of the book was right, the beginning or the end, then that is truly deceitful, sly, devious, crafty. Remember, attached to that NT version that you possess, there is the (pardon me, and rest assured… I do not lie, I am not a Jew, but I can not STAND calling it old testament and thus, I am not going to watch myself simply to please others) Tanakh. In there it says that God is not a man and even Jesus says that God is a Spirit… well, there are genuine people with good hearts in the world today who are thoroughly confused thanks to Paul and catholicism. Can you honestly not see why? You say it is a man that is God and that this man was being subtle about it… yet, he plainly said that he promoted the Law and the prophets… that kind of subtlety would be of the devious and crafty nature. It would leave us playing the guessing game.

I do not know that god. I know a God that always clears up the questions in my head and all I have to do is apply myself to searching the Scriptures and in all honesty, to listen without trying to prove MYSELF right and before long, I will see that He always declares outright the answers to my questions.

I know this is a jumbled mess of words and I am generally not one to post without tidying up… nevertheless, I am going to make an exception in this case.

 

[Ben_Masada]

One

At the dinner table! with Simon the leper and the disciples watching!!! And all they could think of was how much the perfume cost! You’ve given new meaning to the verse:
When the disciples saw what was happening, they were furious. “That’s criminal! This could have been sold for a lot and the money handed out to the poor.”

 

[paarsurrey]

well, there are genuine people with good hearts in the world today who are thoroughly confused **thanks to Paul **

Hi friend simplynoone!

I think Paul was a clever one who only confused the sheep in the absence of the Shepherd gone to India. The clever one or Paul misguided the sheep, and taught them beliefs which had nothing to do with Jesus, in my opinion. Paul adopted all sorts of crafty methods to lead the sheep astray of the truthful and enlightened ways of Jesus and Mary, in my opinion.

The sheep were sincere and simple people, in my opinion. This process continued in future and there were people who adopted the clever lines of Paul for their own benefit and hence I use Paul as an abstraction and club them with Paul; they were one with Paul so I name them all as Paul.

It was not a new thing in religious history, in my opinion, there had been people in the religious history of the world in the past also who had been playing wrongly, overtly or covertly, with the teachings of the Messengers of GodAllahYHWH; for the sake of convenience I also club them with Paul. It is Paul playing with the teachings of the Messengers of GodAllahYHWH, in my opinion; playing with their life accounts, playing with the Word of revelation of the Messengers, adding and subtracting also if the need be, in my opinion.

Like in the time of Moses when Moses was gone up the mountain Paul*(or Samiri) mislead the faithful/sheep to the worship of the golden calf; even Aaron could do nothing in the absence of Moses to stop then from worshiping the calf. Moses burnt the bull and he had to kill, I think some 3000 heads of Jews for this sinful act, such a serious wrong.

So, it is Paul confusing and creating doubts in the minds of the faithful/sheep in every age, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange maneuvers of Paul.

No disrespect intended to anybody; this is my sincere opinion, the Catholics need not believe it, if they are not convinced with it.

Thanks

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear PaarSurrey

My apologies for calling you a heretic on this thread some time ago for your views on Jesus and His marriage. I have been made to understand that it constitutes an ad hominem. I should have simply said that I find your Muslim views heretical for me as a Christian.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear Chaldean Rite

My apologies for calling you a heretic. Similarly, I should merely have said that I find your interpretation of the wedding at Cana that Jesus attended, as described in John 2:1-10, heretical to my Christian understanding of the same Biblical passage.

 

[LilyM]

I have a task for you. When Jesus was at the table with Simon the leper in Betany, and Mary approached Jesus to anoint him with that expensive perfume, one of the guests, perhaps a Pharisee, criticized the act with the following words: “If he knew who this woman is, he would not allow her to do this.” Can you find where is this written?

Ben:

Not that I’m going to do your homework and find chapter and verse, but you DO realise that this is highly strange. It happened after the wedding at Cana, of course, so why would Jesus not turn around and say ‘but she’s my wife!’. Odder still, why would someone who was friendly enough with Jesus to join Him at dinner, and knowledgeable enough about Mary to know ‘who this woman is’ not know that they were married to each other? Same reasoning applies even if they were only engaged.

Odder still, the Apostles were all THERE at the wedding - why wouldn’t they explain, if Jesus was unwilling, to anyone who criticised?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Jesus Changes Water to Wine

1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there,

2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.

3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

9 They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside

10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

 

[paarsurrey]

Dear PaarSurrey

My apologies for calling you a heretic on this thread some time ago for your views on Jesus and His marriage. I have been made to understand that it constitutes an ad hominem. I should have simply said that I find your Muslim views heretical for me as a Christian.

Hi friend S J Thaikattil

I don’t mind such little things.

May GodAllahYHWH bless you!

Where you had been all these days ?

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

 

[LilyM]

You know, I was not going to comment any further, but I could not let go of a great point you have actually made.

You are right. Subtlety is lost on me in the sense that you are speaking of. The definition that fits what you are describing is crafty or sly or devious. I learned well when I was young that I would not be successful at lying. I tried it and my conscience bore down on me so hard that never did it fail, I would end up confessing. After so many times of the embarrassment of having to confess not ONLY that I wronged (mostly my parents), but I had even been deceitful about it, I learned that it was easier to just be straightforward in the first place or to watch my interactions with others and my actions altogether.

Here’s the thing, the lesson of what you said above has VERY recently played out for me; yet it goes deeper in the scenario that you are suggesting.

If Jesus was indeed here, as God, and yet he left us without knowing for sure because he wanted to be subtle about it and such a thing as our salvation rests upon guessing which half of the book was right, the beginning or the end, then that is truly deceitful, sly, devious, crafty. Remember, attached to that NT version that you possess, there is the (pardon me, and rest assured… I do not lie, I am not a Jew, but I can not STAND calling it old testament and thus, I am not going to watch myself simply to please others) Tanakh. In there it says that God is not a man and even Jesus says that God is a Spirit… well, there are genuine people with good hearts in the world today who are thoroughly confused thanks to Paul and catholicism. Can you honestly not see why? You say it is a man that is God and that this man was being subtle about it… yet, he plainly said that he promoted the Law and the prophets… that kind of subtlety would be of the devious and crafty nature. It would leave us playing the guessing game.

I do not know that god. I know a God that always clears up the questions in my head and all I have to do is apply myself to searching the Scriptures and in all honesty, to listen without trying to prove MYSELF right and before long, I will see that He always declares outright the answers to my questions.

I know this is a jumbled mess of words and I am generally not one to post without tidying up… nevertheless, I am going to make an exception in this case.

The arrogance! So many, every bit as intelligent, every bit as earnestly seeking and searching, as you, are led to Quran or Bhagvad Gita - or New Testament - by that very same search. So of course they’re ALL wrong and you alone, since you reject all of 'em, are right? Puh-leeze. The only god you worship is the god manufactured by your own mind.

Who says that any of Jesus’ actions must be the products of any negative traits such as craft, slyness or deviousness? That’s an unwarranted assumption on your part.

He said - and showed - more than enough for anyone who cared to pay attention to learn that He is God. Gabriel, Elizabeth and the unborn John the Baptist, the shepherds and Magi who gave Him the gift of incense to honour His divinity, and the Sanhedrin had no doubt about who He claimed to be. Neither did His apostles or disciples, at the very least not after His resurrection (witness Thomas’ worshipping Him as God).

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

**Bottom line here…this thread is absurd and ridiculous. The offenses committed by those on here of Christ is terrible. I will not hear of Jesus being married or anything else. He came for one purpose and one purpose only. To die for you and for me. period. He was Divine, he came for no other reason.
How come Catholics are the smarter ones and know Christ didn’t get married and Christ had no family and no brothers and sisters? Seems only non-Catholics think that he had…good grief… **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Not that I’m going to do your homework and find chapter and verse, but you DO realise that this is highly strange. It happened after the wedding at Cana, of course, so why would Jesus not turn around and say ‘but she’s my wife!’. Odder still, why would someone who was friendly enough with Jesus to join Him at dinner, and knowledgeable enough about Mary to know ‘who this woman is’ not know that they were married to each other? Same reasoning applies even if they were only engaged.

Odder still, the Apostles were all THERE at the wedding - why wouldn’t they explain, if Jesus was unwilling, to anyone who criticised?

No, that’s all right LilyM, I was trying to remember who had asked me if the woman who anointed Jesus in Betany was the same as Mary Magdalene. But just to make sure if Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany were one and the same. And I thought you had been the one, but I was mistaken.

But since we are at it, Jesus had no need to especifically remind that Pharisee that the woman was his wife, because it was obvious. No woman would dare to approach a man to anoint him with perfume, massage and kisses if she was not quite familiar with him. And the criticism of the disciples, especially Judas was addressed at the woman, because they would not dare to criticise their own Master directly.

So, for that person who asked me if Mary Magdalene and Mary the sister of Martha were one and the same. Yes, they were. John even reports that the dinner was at Mary’s own house, where
Mary did the anointing. (John 12:1-3) (Luke 7:36-40)

Ben:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Originally Posted by planten
Gabriel of 12, that is your belief, i.e. the resurrection. We believe that Jesus was not dead when he was brought from the Cross. He had fainted. He was un-conscious. Later in a room like tomb, Jesus recovered and Got Up. That Got Up you call it resurrection.

There was no resurrection in the bible old books. It was written “He rose”. or, it was said “He had risen”. Well he rose from a lying down position not from any dead position. What do you say? Later he could not appear in public because he was a condemned man supposed to be dead. So he kept low and met only his close friends. Later he migrated like all the othe rprophets, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses a.s. he did not go up into the sky but went away in search of other Jews, the lost tribes of the Jewish race.

Gabriel of 12:
Your personal analogy conflicts with the rest of the scriptures; For one Jesus was condemned to die by the Roman courts and the Jewish High priest. What makes you think Jesus could just faint, be put in a “room like tomb” wake up the next day and walk away.

Of course Jesus “Rose” “Arisen” from a laying position, for he was resting in death, and during this rest he descended to the dead to set the captives free, then he arose from death in his resurrection to give us eternal life.

Did you forget the disciple were hiding for fear of the Jews and the Roman Authorities, Jesus had risen, dont you think these Romans and Jews wanted Jesus body to prove his (Jesus) Prophecy untrue if they could produce Jesus body? But Jesus kept appearing to eyewitnesses, that is who the Catholic church is today she is the bride of Her Husband Jesus who lives forever and ever amen.

If you think this type of opinion of the resurrection has any validity where Jesus fainted, woke up and walked away from a legal condemned death. I would question your sanity here about scripture reading and the recorded historical accounts.

You know what I find interesting from your Muslim and Jewish views, they all contain truth to them, but they do not contain the Spirit of God. For example, I could agree with most of all your posts, but the Spirit of God is able to help me discern what is “Truth” and what is “decietful”. So If one really contemplated your words and applied to scripture teaching they do contain some truth from a worldly aspect but lack in the fullness of truth.

So Yes Jesus is Married, and Yes Jesus did take a bride, but not in the way you try to distort scripture by the flesh and a worldly perspective. Jesus is described as the groom, and John the baptist as the best man. The wedding takes place in heaven on earth at every Mass where the bride reveals herself to her groom and both become one body. And secondly Jesus did rest, and did rise from sleep, again not in the way the serpent wants to decieve these miracles of God that have been truly revealed to the world to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, as Isaiah prophecied about.

Peace be with you