The Wedding of Jesus

[Randy_Carson]

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:

And I have responded twice that text does not say that Jesus alone was “called” but that Jesus and his disciples were called to the wedding.

Therefore, your interpretation fails.

 

[Ben_Masada]

.

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.

Regarding Junior or Senior Rabbis, the title was not granted on the basis of wisdom but on the basis of time.

Now, regarding Psalm 110:1 with reference to the expression, “The Lord said to my Lord,” which the writer of the first gospel puts forth as a challenge which no one could give a reply, all nonsense and proof that it was made up by a Gentile who thought that no Jew would ever find out. If I were there, he would never come up with this nonsense because the question is only too easy to answer.

Here it is: Many of David’s psalms were written to be chanted in the Temple by the Levites. Psalm 110 was one of them. When this Psalm was originally written, the words were: “The Lord said to me: Sit at My right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.” Then, it would be too awkward for the choir to say, “The Lord said to me…” So, an alteration was made for the words to be said, “The Lord (God) said to my Lord (David): Sit at My right hand till I make of…” Now, tell me, where would be the difficulty for this reply?

Ben:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Regarding Junior or Senior Rabbis, the title was not granted on the basis of wisdom but on the basis of time.

Now, regarding Psalm 110:1 with reference to the expression, “The Lord said to my Lord,” which the writer of the first gospel puts forth as a challenge which no one could give a reply, all nonsense and proof that it was made up by a Gentile who thought that no Jew would ever find out. If I were there, he would never come up with this nonsense because the question is only too easy to answer.

Here it is: Many of David’s psalms were written to be chanted in the Temple by the Levites. Psalm 110 was one of them. When this Psalm was originally written, the words were: “The Lord said to me: Sit at My right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.” Then, it would be too awkward for the choir to say, “The Lord said to me…” So, an alteration was made for the words to be said, “The Lord (God) said to my Lord (David): Sit at My right hand till I make of…” Now, tell me, where would be the difficulty for this reply?

Ben:

Hogwash.

If the Levites were chanting the words of David, there would be no problem with them chanting his exact quote…no one would confuse the idea that God said something to David with the possibility that God had said these very words to the Levite standing there.

Moreover, how many of us have not said, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want”? We’re saying David’s words, but we are also identifying with David’s experience. The Levites could have done the same by remaining faithful to the text.

But look, this is a sidebar and you are using it to avoid answering more direct questions. I mean, really, who cares whether Jesus was a Junior or Senior rabbi when the more important reality is that Jesus is G-D.

Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”

The gospel also says, “Jesus and his disciples were also invited/called.”

You have not provided a satisfactory response to either of these verses. I also asked what book you are getting all this nonsense from.

We’re waiting.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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?

To predict or to sense? What does this have to do with taking a wife? Besides, Jesus survived the cross and left with Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. Look throughout the NT for some word about these three people after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples and was gone. Sorry my friend if things
don’t have to be the way you wish they were.

Ben:

 

[Randy_Carson]

To predict or to sense? What does this have to do with taking a wife? Besides, Jesus survived the cross and left with Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. Look throughout the NT for some word about these three people after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples and was gone. Sorry my friend if things
don’t have to be the way you wish they were.

Ben:

If what you say is true, then Jesus was predicting His death, but since he was only a man (and not God), he could not know that he would survive ahead of time. He expected to die. Period.

Again, it would not make sense to take a wife under these circumstances.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hogwash.

quote] God had said these very words to the Levite standing there.

God said to the Levites! You are being too anthropomorphic.

Moreover, how many of us have not said, “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want”? We’re saying David’s words, but we are also identifying with David’s experience. The Levites could have done the same by remaining faithful to the text.

Hypothetical nonsense.

who cares whether Jesus was a Junior or Senior rabbi when the more important reality is that Jesus is G-D.

This is Greek Mythology. Nothing to do with Judaism. Jesus was Jewish.

Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”

I can say the same if I am in tune with God’s Law.

The gospel also says, “Jesus and his disciples were also invited/called.”

Of course! What did you expect? It was convenient to Pauline Christology.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

If what you say is true, then Jesus was predicting His death, but since he was only a man (and not God), he could not know that he would survive ahead of time. He expected to die. Period.

Again, it would not make sense to take a wife under these circumstances.

You have the right to your opinion and myself to mine.

Ben

 

[Lev23]

To get married and father children is the first of
the 613 commandments. When Jesus declared in Matthew 5:17-19 that he had not come to abolish the Law but to keep it to the dot of the letter, he meant all the commandments including the first one.

Why instead of provoking me don’t you get serious and reconsider your beliefs? Judaism, which was the faith of Jesus is possible for Gentiles of good faith.

Ben:

Note for everyone

247 of the 613 commandments are related to the Tabernacle/Temple. That is over 40 percent.

Rabbinical Judaism has the problem here. With the 2nd Temple gone, the Priest was replaced by the Rabbi, and 247 commandments were replaced by what the authority of the “Oral Law” instituted.

Jesus Christ has kept all the commandments, including the commandments pertaining to the Tabernacle/Temple.

 

[Randy_Carson]

God said to the Levites! You are being too anthropomorphic.

Hypothetical nonsense.

This is Greek Mythology. Nothing to do with Judaism. Jesus was Jewish.

I can say the same if I am in tune with God’s Law.

Of course! What did you expect? It was convenient to Pauline Christology.

Ben:

Assertions without support. It appears you are reduced to simply denying what you do not want to believe.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You have the right to your opinion and myself to mine.

Ben

Great!

Then your assertions in the OP as facts have now been reduced to the level of mere personal opinions.

Oh, and don’t forget: a Jew by the name of Jesus from the town of Nazareth once declared, “I and the Father are one”, and many other Jews believed him. So do I.

My work here is done. :tiphat:

 

[estesbob]

When reading Scripture a little bit of common sense is also required. If such an important event as Jesus getting married had takien place it would seem it would have been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament or in any of the apocryphal Gospels written after his death or in any of the writings of the church fathers.

I guess we should count ourselves lucky that this is not another one of those “Jesus wasn’t married therefore he must have been a homosexual” threads.

 

[estesbob]

You have the right to your opinion and myself to mine.

Ben

We are all entitled to our own opinion However we are not entitled to our own set of facts. I could have the opinion that Jesus was a space alien but barring any facts whatsoever to back that up people are going to discount my opinion not only on this but my opinion on anything else. I can guarantee you that any time I run across you in these forums I am going to take anything you say with a huge grain of salt .

 

[Lev23]

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:

In the time of the Gospels of Jesus, the Jewish man would go to the father and the woman he would propose to. He would bring what we called a contract, or agreement, with a price. If the father/daughter were in agreement with the man, his contract, and price, the man and woman would seal the deal by raising up a glass of wine and drink it. He would then make a statement to her that he goes off to his fathers house to prepare a place for them, that is a honeymoon suite to you and me. He would prepare other things also. The bridegroom would go back to do just that, and no one knew the timing of when he would come back to get his bride because only the father knew, because it was the father that would look over the preparation of the sons work to see if it was done accordingly.

When things were ready and the father approved, the bridegroom, with his friends would go to her house to “steal his bride” in the middle of the night. To warn her it was him, he would let out a loud shout, she of course, would have been waiting for this moment. For she had to be prepared always, for she knew not when he would come get her.

To wrap things up, the bridegroom would take his bride back to the chamber he built for them, and notice what John the Baptist says-

John 3:27-30
To this John replied, "A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.’ The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.

So Christians do know of Jewish things. And this is where the church is now. We have looked over his contract that was signed and dated**(Jeremiah 31:31-37)**, we accepted the price paid for us, the highest price ever, the blood of Yeshua, he has gone to his Fathers house and will come back at an hour only his Father knows. The Church is always to be prepared for his coming to us, we are always to have oil in our lamps, that oil represents the Holy Spirit.

 

[paarsurrey]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4814543&postcount=68

Hi

Our friends Ben Masada and Randy Carson while locked in a discussion in the above post; Ben Masada commented, “Oh! So miracles made at home are not signs; but miracles made in public are signs. Sure!”

I thought it was an important topic; on which we needed more light from our friend Ben Masada, here it would have been off-topic, so I have started a new thread for discussion titled “Miracles made in public are Signs”:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4814723#post4814723
Miracles made in public are Signs

Thanks

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I not sure if any one has thought of this but Mary the sister of Martha is not the same Mary and Mary Magdalene. And Christ did not meant Mary Magdelene till after the wedding in Canna.

 

[paarsurrey]

If such an important event as Jesus getting married had takien place it would seem it would have been mentioned somewhere in the New Testament .

Hi

Well, I don’t agree with you in discounting the matter of Jesus’ marriage meaning that it was of lesser importance.

The Gospels record only events of 3 years of Jesus life, that shows that perhaps they had little interest in Jesus. They were more interested in proving that Jesus died on the Cross; though they failed in this also, in my opinion; only to prove Paul’s theological philosophy. Their gospels mostly revolved around the incident of Crucifixion and ascension of Jesus, to me.

Others could remain steadfast onto their beliefs and differ with me with reason, no compulsion.

I love Jesus and would defend him,

Thanks

 

[erigby27]

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

Where does it say she was referring to the guests already complaining?

It does not say, “Mary complained to Jesus: ‘there’s no more wine’”, nor does the text say “The guests complained to Mary that there was no wine, and so she approached Jesus.”

No where in the text does it say anything about complaining or about other guests. If you read the text as it is, it just reads that Mary noticed there was no more wine and out of charity approached her son ( who she knew was “gifted”, to say the least).

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.

This is not the only instance where Jesus refers to his mother as “woman”.

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.

How does this answer my question? I realize that the Gospel of John was not written by John (as John would be long dead by the time this was written). Telling me that doesn’t even begin to address the issue. Let me rephrase: why would the writer of the Gospel, who so obviously likes to use Jesus’ name as much as possible, refer to Jesus as something he had never referred to him as before? It doesn’t make sense from a stylistic perspective.

The editor used the word “invited” but the real term is “called.” Jesus was called.

Again, where is your source? What original document are you reading that says “called” and not “invited”? You argument is basically deconstructed by the fact that Jesus was invited. Who is to say he was not invited, but was, as you say, “called”. Where is your source? You really need one in order to make these allegations.

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.

I know how a Jewish wedding works. After everything is signed and plates are broken, the bridegroom is called over from the tish to the bride in quite a procession of song and dance, and then they proceed to the Chupah. That’s not what this text says though. The text says Jesus and his disciples “had also been invited to the wedding”. It does not say that at the wedding, Jesus was called from one room to another, which is what you are referring to. You are reading things that are not in the text.

However, as soon as you provide me with your source, I’d be happy to look at it. I love a good bit of Apocrypha.

 

[erigby27]

I not sure if any one has thought of this but Mary the sister of Martha is not the same Mary and Mary Magdalene. And Christ did not meant Mary Magdelene till after the wedding in Canna.

excellent.

 

[PJM]

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

My dear friend in Christ Jesus,

Your post makes a bit less than no sense?

Jesus was far more than a “man.” He is the Very Son of God! He didn’t become man in order to get married. God is all ready “everything good,” and to the fullest possible degree.

Even a pagan, the stauchest non-believer would know that IF Jesus were married, it would have been reported in the bible.

Other than speculation, personal opinion, and a complete lack of understanding of the Nature of God; zip, zerro, nadda, evidence can be given in support of the attempt to slander God’s Church!

Not the tinest shred of evidence exist to support, what can only be seen as an attempt (as if it were even possible to) somehow damage the reputation of Jesus.How pathetic:blush:

The next time you go fishing, try better bait, and a smaller lake. This one’s all fished out.

I thank all my fellow Catholics, who with truth and wisdom, refuted this (be chairitble Pat) less tna serious attempt to perpetuate, what we all know is simply what someone, wishes was true,

 

[paarsurrey]

He (Jesus) didn’t become man in order to get married.

Hi

I don’t agree with you, sorry. Jesus as a man had a free will. He was competent enough to set his goals of life as per his true nature. You or Paul cannot dictate any goals for him, in my opinion. The parts bestowed on him by God Allah YHWH, the Creator, best show as to what Jesus was supposed to do, and he did accordingly, in my opinion.

Kindly explain clearly.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks