The Wedding of Jesus

[inJESUS]

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:

the virgin birth cannot be compared to other miracles since it was not witnessed by humans nor was it done for humans, whether yu believe in it or not.

 

[inJESUS]

Actually a single verse collapses this whole thread, which is that Jesus was invited to a wedding. I hope the OP is not saying that in Judaism, the groom is invited to his wedding?

 

[Ben_Masada]

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

The first miracle EVER? The first public miracle? The first one that John observed personally?

There could be several “firsts”.

However, you fail to recognize one subtle point: John says that the miracle at the Wedding was the “first of his miraclulous signs”. The word “signs” is the key. Jesus could have performed other miracles (when he was younger) that were not given as a “sign” but were perfomed for the benefit of the family.

There are apocryphal narratives of Jesus’ childhood which suggest he performed miracles as a child in Egypt.

I don’t place any weight on these accounts personally, but they do suggest that the idea that Jesus had performed miracles earlier in life is not too big a stretch.

(Look for the humor - it’s there.)

 

[inJESUS]

So He is considered to be a rabbi, yet not a formal one right?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Actually a single verse collapses this whole thread, which is that Jesus was invited to a wedding. I hope the OP is not saying that in Judaism, the groom is invited to his wedding?

I understand you because you don’t know about Jewish things, and you are not expected to know any better. At the wedding of a Jewish couple, the Bridegroom is not invited but “called.” Called to take his Bride. To take the responsibility of a father over his daughter, which is transfered unto the husband.

Therefore, ceremonially, the Groom stays a little further away, even in the next room in order to be called. The problem is that the translator just found more convenient to use the word invited instead of the symbolical term “called.” Invited were the guests, but Jesus was called. I have read that in Greek, the same term is used. I got married in Israel with a very traditional Yemenite Jewish Bride. So, I went through what I am talking about.
Ben:

 

[Randy_Carson]

One thing is for sure, Christianity fascinates Ben Masada.

Like a dog worrying a bone, he just can’t let it go.

Ben, if you hear a voice calling your name in the middle of the night, I suggest you answer, “Speak Lord, for your servant is listening.” (1 Samuel 3:9)

It seems to me that God is calling to you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I understand you because you don’t know about Jewish things, and you are not expected to know any better. At the wedding of a Jewish couple, the Bridegroom is not invited but “called.” Called to take his Bride. To take the responsibility of a father over his daughter, which is transfered unto the husband.

Therefore, ceremonially, the Groom stays a little further away, even in the next room in order to be called. The problem is that the translator just found more convenient to use the word invited instead of the symbolical term “called.” Invited were the guests, but Jesus was called. I have read that in Greek, the same term is used. I got married in Israel with a very traditional Yemenite Jewish Bride. So, I went through what I am talking about.
Ben:

I understand you because you don’t know any better about Christian things, but you ought to be able to read the text:

John2:1-2
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.

Jesus and his disciples were “called” (as you say) to the wedding?

I realize that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but how many of these guys who were “called” was she supposed to marry?

(No disrespect toward Jesus, the disciples, or St. Mary Magdalene intended. Sarcasm used for illustrative purposes only.)

 

[Ben_Masada]

The first miracle EVER? The first public miracle? The first one that John observed personally?

There could be several “firsts”.

Too hypothetical.

However, you fail to recognize one subtle point: John says that the miracle at the Wedding was the “first of his miraclulous signs”. The word “signs” is the key. Jesus could have performed other miracles (when he was younger) that were not given as a “sign” but were perfomed for the benefit of the family.

Oh! So miracles made at home are not signs; but miracles made in public are signs. Sure!

There are apocryphal narratives of Jesus’ childhood which suggest he performed miracles as a child in Egypt.

Why don’t you ask Luke if Jesus performed miracles as a child in Egypt? Do you know why you can’t ask him? Because while the Jesus of Matthew was making miracles as a child in Egypt, the Jesus of Luke was back in Nazareth since age of 40 days. Read Luke 2:39.

I don’t place any weight on these accounts personally, but they do suggest that the idea that Jesus had performed miracles earlier in life is not too big a stretch.

Too hypothetical.

Ben:

 

[inJESUS]

I understand you because you don’t know about Jewish things, and you are not expected to know any better. At the wedding of a Jewish couple, the Bridegroom is not invited but “called.” Called to take his Bride. To take the responsibility of a father over his daughter, which is transfered unto the husband.

Therefore, ceremonially, the Groom stays a little further away, even in the next room in order to be called. The problem is that the translator just found more convenient to use the word invited instead of the symbolical term “called.” Invited were the guests, but Jesus was called. I have read that in Greek, the same term is used. I got married in Israel with a very traditional Yemenite Jewish Bride. So, I went through what I am talking about.
Ben:

fascinating, so Jesus and His disciples were “called” to marry the same woman. ok.

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. - John 2:1-2

 

[Ben_Masada]

I understand you because you don’t know any better about Christian things, but you ought to be able to read the text:

John2:1-2
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.

Jesus and his disciples were “called” (as you say) to the wedding?

I realize that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but how many of these guys who were “called” was she supposed to marry?

(No disrespect toward Jesus, the disciples, or St. Mary Magdalene intended. Sarcasm used for illustrative purposes only.)

You are no longer serious. I am sorry!

 

[Ben_Masada]

One thing is for sure, Christianity fascinates Ben Masada.

Like a dog worrying a bone, he just can’t let it go.

Ben, if you hear a voice calling your name in the middle of the night, I suggest you answer, “Speak Lord, for your servant is listening.” (1 Samuel 3:9)

It seems to me that God is calling to you.

You forgot to tell me to test the voice under the light of Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if it doesn’t speak according to that light, it’s because there is no light in it.”
The Law is the Torah, and the Testimony is the rest of the Tanach.
In a word, Judaism, the faith of Jesus.

Ben:

 

[Randy_Carson]

For the difinition of a Rabbi of that time, there were two: The first was of a Senior Rabbi who would stay either in the Temple and held some kind of Yeshiva where students would go to, or in Bet Midrashim throughout the Country.

Three and a half years for Jesus was too short a time to get him from the position of a Junior Rabbi. Therefore, Jesus was of the ambulant kind who gathered around him a group of 12 to teach Torah and prepare talmidim of future generations. He would go around and preach in pre-established centers for Torah study.

Regarding the question of the chief priests to Jesus in the Temple, it simply didn’t happened. It must have been an interpolation with the purpose to enhance Jesus divinity. I do believe that 80 percent of the NT is composed of interpolations.

Ben:

Oh…I get it now. We must accept your fanciful stories, explanations and novelties AS TRUTH while you get to reject the New Testament which has been in existence for nearly 2,000 years as mere interpolations.

Nothing like a level playing field.

However, regarding Jesus’ status as a Junior Rabbi:

Luke 2:46-47
46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.

Matthew 22:15-22
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”
21"Caesar’s," they replied.
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” 22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Matthew 22:41-46
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42"What do you think about the Christd]? Whose son is he?"
“The son of David,” they replied.
43He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44” 'The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.” 'e] 45If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

It seems to me that Jesus was quite a bit brighter than all the “Senior Rabbis” combined.

 

[Ben_Masada]

the virgin birth cannot be compared to other miracles since it was not witnessed by humans nor was it done for humans, whether yu believe in it or not.

You don’t have the lightest idea about that miracle, which had nothing to do with Jesus.

Ben:

 

[Valke2]

There’s no way that you can argue with anything approaching finality that Jesus was married. The strongest evidence you can put forth is that generally rabbis were married by the time Jesus was crucified. Hardly enough to make even the most casual christian blink.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You forgot to tell me to test the voice under the light of Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if it doesn’t speak according to that light, it’s because there is no light in it.”
The Law is the Torah, and the Testimony is the rest of the Tanach.
In a word, Judaism, the faith of Jesus.

Ben:

Psalm 95:7-8
Today, if you hear his voice, 8do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the desert,

 

[Ben_Masada]

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are no longer serious. I am sorry!

I am serious.

Since the scriptures say that Jesus AND HIS DISCIPLES were invited (you say “called”), then it is not possible to interpret the text as you do in an attempt to explain away the plain fact that Jesus was an invited guest and not the bridegroom.

Now, deal with the text, Ben.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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?

I have explained twice why Jesus was not invited but “called.” Seek and you will find if you are indeed following the development of the thread.

Ben:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just a thought…since Jesus predicted His death on more than one occasion, would it have made sense for him to take a wife that He knew would be widowed at a young age?