The Wedding of Jesus

[Ben_Masada]

Mat 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9
Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper. A woman came to him with an alabaster jar of expensive perfumed oil, and she poured it on his head as he was at the table.
(this passage does not state Mary is the woman, but I thought it was the one they were discussing and I didn’t want to get caught up arguing about who the woman was. My point was that he was reading a lot more into the text then what was actually there. )

John 12:1-3
Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, …
They gave a dinner for him there, and Martha served, …
Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus

Luke 7:37-39
Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, a sinful woman brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
**
I think these are actually three different events.**

Three different events! Three different women! What a Don Juan Jesus was! Sorry, but I don’t buy it! In fact, you forgot the one of Luke 7:36-40. Four different cases. Four different women. One more woman for the Don Juan.

Those events are one and the same; only that they were terribly reported by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. It seems to me, with the rushy desperation to document the Church of Paul. God have mercy on those today who entrust their faith to such a babel of confusion!

The Simon, the leper of all cases was Lazarus. The lady serving the guests was Martha. And the Mary doing the anointing was the Magdalene, who by the time was already married to Jesus.Therefore, John is the one closest to the right report.

The problem here is that we have forgotten that Jesus was an Orthodox observant Jew, and it was perfectly okay for Mary to render that pleasure to her husband in her own house. No other woman would approach an Orthodox Jew to do what Mary did to Jesus. The cause of this argument is based on lack of knowledge of what is to be a Jew, which the Gentiles who wrote the gospels
were not aware of.

Ben:

 

[swariffin]

Have we finished discussing about the wedding of Jesus?

 

[Ginger2]

Those events are one and the same; only that they were terribly reported by people who didn’t know what they were talking about.

Ben:

Lol

I can see how Lazarus might be mistaken for a Pharisees.

And now that we know three Gospels were “terribly reported by people who didn’t know what they were talking about.”

I guess we can dismiss everything in the New Testament as erroneous fables.

 

[Ginger2]

Have we finished discussing about the wedding of Jesus?

I think so.

Jesus was invited to his own wedding
I wonder if anyone remembered to invite the bride )…

… and didn’t think to serve high quality until he ran out.

Good thing Jesus guessed wrong about how much wine would be needed.

I guess that about covers everything we need to know.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Lol

I can see how Lazarus might be mistaken for a Pharisees.

And now that we know three Gospels were “terribly reported by people who didn’t know what they were talking about.”

I guess we can dismiss everything in the New Testament as erroneous fables.

Very good Ginger2, as I can see you have learnt something here. Yes, you are right. If they are to claim Jewish practices, they are indeed crowded with erroneous fables.

Ben:

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The only bride Jesus Christ has is the Catholic church.

 

[simplynoone]

How are you a better person if Lazarus is the one whom Jesus loved?

Again… well, here… let me show you the promise of God which I stand on:

Proverbs 2:
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.

Because I knew/know that the answer is there. God does not lie, man does. I am trusting Him, learning as I search, and developing a deeper relationship with Him…The only way I could lose here is by NOT taking Him at His Word and searching for the answer.

How are you lacking spiritually if you never know for certain? Does it effect your ability to love God? do good to others? Does your very salvation depend on knowing for certain who this disciple is?

Ginger2: How are you lacking spiritually if you never know for certain? … I will offer you one answer to get you started.

1. You are showing Him and me that you do not take His commands and Him seriously…

If you never know for certain can you never know God?

I would not say that you could NEVER know God, but it is evidence that you do not now know Him as well as you would like others to think you do since He gave a promise in Proverbs 2 (and many other places… that one is just my personal favorite for personal reasons) and clearly you do not believe He will keep that promise.

But if you do know for certain, maybe you will spend more time seeking knowledge of this man then you will spend seeking knowledge of Jesus. Maybe you will begin to think you can know God though knowing more about this man.

Seriously? Alright… please share with me if you will, what will it hurt for me to gasps God forbid! search the Scriptures for the answer? Just because you believe God lies does not mean I believe He lies… In fact, I know He does NOT lie… man lies, not God.

You cannot learn more about God by learning about any man, except Jesus.

You made a pretty bold statement there! I would think about what you have not only declared here, but confessed.

 

[simplynoone]

If you follow the teaching of Jesus, you can still get into heaven, without having to see a man being nailed to the cross.

Uh… Thanks?

 

[jblake]

simplynoone;:

is it a requirement to turn off any and extra avenues of thought?

No.

What is so wrong with Jesus getting married?

Intrinsically, it doesn’t matter. However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to support that hypothesis, and some evidence that supports the opposite hypothesis, claiming he was married is to add that which is not supporttable by scripture, or tradition.

It hasn’t worked out well for the priests of the catholic church to abstain.

Whilst the Catholic church would have more priests, if they were allowed to be married, that state would not reduce the amount of adultery, or other sexual sins committed by priests.

jonathon

 

[WarriorAngel]

Three different events! Three different women! What a Don Juan Jesus was! Sorry, but I don’t buy it! In fact, you forgot the one of Luke 7:36-40. Four different cases. Four different women. One more woman for the Don Juan.

Those events are one and the same; only that they were terribly reported by people who didn’t know what they were talking about. It seems to me, with the rushy desperation to document the Church of Paul. God have mercy on those today who entrust their faith to such a babel of confusion!

The Simon, the leper of all cases was Lazarus. The lady serving the guests was Martha. And the Mary doing the anointing was the Magdalene, who by the time was already married to Jesus.Therefore, John is the one closest to the right report.

The problem here is that we have forgotten that Jesus was an Orthodox observant Jew, and it was perfectly okay for Mary to render that pleasure to her husband in her own house.** No other woman would approach an Orthodox Jew to do what Mary did to Jesus.** The cause of this argument is based on lack of knowledge of what is to be a Jew, which the Gentiles who wrote the gospels
were not aware of.

Ben:

You are showing true ignorance if you think Jesus was Don Juan.
But i think you are showing that because of either insecurity towards the NT or you simply are interpolating them because you think it bothers Catholics.

I am finding it difficult to believe you are serious.

Now which part are you referencing about Mary?
Her vow to the Temple and God to remain a virgin…?
Or the fact she told the Angel Gabriel after her being betrothed to Joseph that ‘how could she be given with child since she didnt know man.’ *Intending to remain a virgin since the Angel’s message was about the upcoming event of concieving. It would only be natural to not question conception if you intended to consumate the marriage - now wouldn’t it??

It makes no sense whatsoever that a woman soon to marry would say this -** unless the vow would remain even after marriage.**

Is that hard to believe?

Might not be true today - which is why the birth of the Messiah has already passed. But Mary only married to have a Guardian to Jesus. AND back in the day - and you can check this - they remained virgins [the young women in the Temple] so as to have the Messiah who was foretold to come from a virgin.

It would be unheard of to be unmarried and give birth even if a virgin.

Isaias 7: 14 contains a real prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ; it must maintain, therefore, that St. Matthew understood the passage when he said: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying; Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son,” etc. (1:22-23).

Isaias 7: 14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

As you claim to know the Jewish traditions, why was it they kept young women in the Temple to be raised virgins and draw out flowering plants if they didnt await the virgin birth?

I think, much like many Protestant brethren - history has repealed alot of truths and now things died out because truly - the fulfillment has already passed.

Otherwise the Jewish tradition and the TEMPLE itself would still be doing the same today - well with the Temple gone - it should be proof these things already passed.

But carry on as is Ben. Goodness knows there hasnt been an animal oblation in 2000 years, nor virgins awaiting the birth being raised in the Temple. I wonder just how much has been retained of the Temple oral traditions…

 

[simplynoone]

Whilst the Catholic church would have more priests, if they were allowed to be married, that state would not reduce the amount of adultery, or other sexual sins committed by priests.

jonathon

Well… at least you are honest.

 

[marymol]

Aplogies if the following point has already been clarified - ( had speedily read through most posts ).

Ben Masada’s confusion is understandable to some extent , due to the seeming inconsistency in the events narrated - as to what our Lord did after being baptised - and may be he is even owed a thanks for drawing attention to this .( How our Lord uses all things to work well !)

The first three gospels mention how our Lord afetr His Baptism, driven by the Spirit goes to the desert , to pray and fast, before the beginning of His public minstry - to take up on the powers of darkness .

After His return from the desert, on an indefinite date , possibly very soon afterwards , He is again on the shores of Jordan - possibly John The Baptist had desired to see His Lord again ( and our Lord too possibly knew that the brood of vipers would soon do away with the truth telling John The Baptist and wanted to grant him his desire to His Lord again !).

Note that in St.John’s account here , there is NO mention of our Lord getting baptised again but John The Baptist is narrating the previous stupendous episode when our Lord steps into the waters of the Jordan - the Jordan that had waited all these years for this one event which is to be far more far reaching than Joshua steppinng in, to part its waters !

He stepped into those waters ,  to show His Fatherly , loving oneness with His children whose sins were  going to be born away, in the fiery Love of The Spirit  to be also poured into His children  soon .

Those children had been fed the lie the Garden that our Father did not value our human nature that much - enough to share His divinty with us !

Our Lord came to show us otherwise - that He loved our nature , enough to embrace it at its tiniest, as a baby, at its weakest and its most painful - to tell us that it is all worth it and precious !

And after the 40 day fast , He is set to show us a glorious Feast - the wine had ran out at the Wedding and The Woman , The Mother comes to intercede .

’ How is this a concern of you and me Woman !" our Lord answers - may be with a twinkle in His eyes , for here The Mother , The Woman is given the powerand the role to revere what happened in The Garden - the serpent had come in univted into affairs it should not have concerend with !

Our Lord had promised - ’ I will put enemity betwen you and The Woman !"

And here is The Woman being given that role - to be in all our affairs !

 Glory Be !

’ If you have seen Me , you have seen The Father ’ - St .John - the youngest among the dsiciples related the best to the Father Love who is our Lord and is thus the beloved disciple .

St.Magdalene was gently chided for trying to hold onto our Lord as a beloved Master after the Resurrection ( if she addressed Him in the most endearing terms - no surprise there ; here our Lord is present to her alive again after the most painful death and she owed her brother’s life as well as her own to this beloved Master !)

Our Lord calls the disciples ‘children’ at The Last Supper !

Jsut as Israel has been The Mystical Bride , so too is The Church and we - children , brought forth , in Blood and Spirit, with the power to forgive and love those who hate and persecute us !

 In His Divinity , our Lord  is One with The Father and reveals The Father's Love to us , in the Power of The Holy Spirit !

if only we could have eyes to see and ears to hear !

O Mary , concieved without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee, pray for those who do not have recourse to Thee , esp. the enemies of The Church !

 

[Ginger2]

How is it we are suddenly talking of the Virgin Mary, when this thread started out about Jesus being married to Mary M. and Mary M. pouring oil on Jesus feet?

 

[marymol]

Aplogies if the following point has already been clarified - ( had speedily read through most posts ).

.

!

1- Our Lord came to show us otherwise - that He loved our nature , enough to embrace it at its tiniest, as  a baby, at its weakest and its most painful - to tell us that it is all worth it and precious  !

2 - ’ How is this a concern of you and me Woman !" our Lord answers - may be with a twinkle in His eyes , for here The Mother , The Woman is given the powerand the role to revere what happened in The Garden - the serpent had come in univted into affairs it should not have concerend with !

 .O Mary , concieved without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee, pray for those  who do not have recourse to Thee , esp. the enemies of The Church !

Apologies again ( in this time of our repenting for our sins , is it not good to be asking for apologies again !-
Couple of corrections above -

1 - could read how our Lord came to show us how precious our human nature is to Him that He embraced it at its tiniest as a baby, at its seemingly insignificant and hidden ( like it is for most of His children - atleast this side of heaven !) and at its most painful.

2 - should read how our Bl.Mother is given the glorious role to REVERSE what the serpent did in the Garden - coming in uninvited !

"Vengeance belongs to Me ' says our Lord - perfect  vengeance indeed !

I Am The Truth - our Lord has said !

The Truth of The Father’s Love indeed !

O Blood and Water that gush forth from The Heart of Jesus ,as a fount of Mercy for us, cleanse, heal and protect us !

 

[planten]

**I am always looking at the following:

O Blood and Water that gush forth from The Heart of Jesus ,as a fount of Mercy for us, cleanse, heal and protect us !**

I cannot believe that blood and water would gush out of a dead body. This had been pointed out many times before. It has come up again in above post now. Will any one please understand that Jesus was alive when brought down from the cross that is why blood and water gushed out…

 

[LilyM]

**I am always looking at the following:

O Blood and Water that gush forth from The Heart of Jesus ,as a fount of Mercy for us, cleanse, heal and protect us !**

I cannot believe that blood and water would gush out of a dead body. This had been pointed out many times before. It has come up again in above post now. Will any one please understand that Jesus was alive when brought down from the cross that is why blood and water gushed out…

You haven’t read the Gospels properly - the blood and water came out while Jesus was still ON the cross, when He was stabbed with the spear. Not after He was taken down.

 

[Ben_Masada]

The only bride Jesus Christ has is the Catholic church.

Sorry OTCA, but this is Pauline Mysticism that
butters no bread.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are showing true ignorance if you think Jesus was Don Juan.
But i think you are showing that because of either insecurity towards the NT or you simply are interpolating them because you think it bothers Catholics.

I am finding it difficult to believe you are serious.

Now which part are you referencing about Mary?
Her vow to the Temple and God to remain a virgin…?
Or the fact she told the Angel Gabriel after her being betrothed to Joseph that ‘how could she be given with child since she didnt know man.’ *Intending to remain a virgin since the Angel’s message was about the upcoming event of concieving. It would only be natural to not question conception if you intended to consumate the marriage - now wouldn’t it??

It makes no sense whatsoever that a woman soon to marry would say this -** unless the vow would remain even after marriage.**

Is that hard to believe?

Might not be true today - which is why the birth of the Messiah has already passed. But Mary only married to have a Guardian to Jesus. AND back in the day - and you can check this - they remained virgins [the young women in the Temple] so as to have the Messiah who was foretold to come from a virgin.

It would be unheard of to be unmarried and give birth even if a virgin.

Isaias 7: 14 contains a real prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ; it must maintain, therefore, that St. Matthew understood the passage when he said: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying; Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son,” etc. (1:22-23).

Isaias 7: 14
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

As you claim to know the Jewish traditions, why was it they kept young women in the Temple to be raised virgins and draw out flowering plants if they didnt await the virgin birth?

I think, much like many Protestant brethren - history has repealed alot of truths and now things died out because truly - the fulfillment has already passed.

Otherwise the Jewish tradition and the TEMPLE itself would still be doing the same today - well with the Temple gone - it should be proof these things already passed.

But carry on as is Ben. Goodness knows there hasnt been an animal oblation in 2000 years, nor virgins awaiting the birth being raised in the Temple. I wonder just how much has been retained of the Temple oral traditions…

We are not talking about Mary, the mother of Jesus but about Mary Magdalene, his wife. I don’t see where and why you had to make the change.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

I think so.

Jesus was invited to his own wedding
I wonder if anyone remembered to invite the bride )…

… and didn’t think to serve high quality until he ran out.

Good thing Jesus guessed wrong about how much wine would be needed.

I guess that about covers everything we need to know.

Not so fast! There is something else that you need to know. As you know already from my self-experience, the Bridegroom is the one in charge to provide the wine for the guests.

My question is: When they were running out of wine, why didn’t Mary go to the Bridegroom if he was not Jesus? She presented the complain to Jesus for one reason only: She didn’t want for her
son the embarrassment that he had not provided enough wine for everyone. Sometimes it helps to think.

Ben:

 

[Ginger2]

Sometimes it helps to think.

Ben:

I’m thinking, If Jesus was the groom and thereby responsible for the wine, why did he ask, “What does this have to do with me, woman?”