The Wedding of Jesus

[Gertabelle]

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

I seem to be a bit late in this conversation, but after I had a good laugh over the OP, I thought I’d jump in.

paarsurrey, your post makes perfect sense coming from your deep faith in your religion. But this is a Catholic website, and darlin, our beliefs are distinct from yours. We believe, we know that Jesus is more than man. He is also the Incarnation of the One Eternal God.

And Jesus did not come to earth to exercise His own free will, except to submit it to the will of the Father. Yes, He was “competent enough to set his goals of life” but to look at Christ’s life on earth as merely a matter of setting goals and trying to meet them before death – that is a purely human attitude. Each life (mine, yours, etc.) is but a single breath in eternity.

Would God Himself take on flesh just so He could get goals and attempt to succeed at them? Would the One Living and Eternal God become Incarnate for a single lifetime just to get married and start a family?

For a Christian, Jesus is God and man, and though the two cannot be separated, it would be foolishness for a Christian to argue that Jesus lived any sort of ordinary human life – what would be the point? Merely spending his life as a husband and father, even preaching and healing in God’s name, even being killed by religious and political leaders, even coming forth from the tomb having not actually died – all these things are fairly ordinary (all right, maybe not that last one!).

It all comes down to faith in the Incarnation. “For those with faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without faith, no explanation is possible.” Faith is a gift – open the box and try it on

God bless you.

Gertie

 

[paarsurrey]

And Jesus did not come to earth to exercise His own free will
Gertie

Hi

I don’t agree with you that Jesus was forced anytime or by anybody on anything or for anything. Jesus did have a free will; otherwise he won’t be a human being; not to speak of a god. A forced sacrifice is no sacrifice; it would be suffering the tribulation, good for nothing, in my opinion. All in vain; and Jesus would be reduced only to a scapegoat.

Kindly express yourself clearly and logically.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

 

[Gertabelle]

Hi

I don’t agree with you that Jesus was forced anytime or by anybody on anything or for anything. Jesus did have a free will; otherwise he won’t be a human being; not to speak of a god. A forced sacrifice is no sacrifice; it would be suffering the tribulation, good for nothing, in my opinion. All in vain; and Jesus would be reduced only to a scapegoat.

Kindly express yourself clearly and logically.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

Forgive me if I did not write clearly.

Jesus did indeed have free will. He used His free will to follow the will of the Father. In this way, he did not surrender his free will but rather made the Father’s will his own. This is what I meant when I said that Jesus did not come to follow His own will – not that Jesus did not have free will as a man, but that He chose to use His free will to follow the will of the Father. If Jesus had been forced to die as a sacrifice for our sins, then as you say, it would all have been for naught.

It was in Jesus’ willingly laying down His life that we have life.

Thank you for your kind request for clarification. I need to get back to my homework now so I may not be available to post again for some time.

God bless you.

Gertie

 

[seintz]

THE WEDDING OF JESUS

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7; John 1:38; 3:2; 20:16. The point is that a Rabbi in Israel had to be a married man. Then, according to Judaism, after the proper procedures, the Jewish prospect would undergo the ceremonial “mikveh” or immersion in waters before ordination.

After Jesus’ immersion in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, Jesus was seen during the next two days on his way to Galilee. (John 1:35,43) Then on the third day after his “mikveh” the family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene.

According to the custom, the mother of the Bride would be in charge of the celebrations, but probably Mary’s parents had passed away because she used to live with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus in Bethany. I mean, they used to live with Mary who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a maiden servant, and Lazarus… well, I think he was a loafer boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick man anyway.

Back to the wedding, Jesus’ mother Mary had to do the host job; and she did it quite well by giving orders around to the servants. Also, according to the custom, the Bridegroom was in charge to provide the wine, which mind you, Jesus made sure it was of the best quality. The tale of the miracle was interpolated much later to deviate the probing attention of those who have a mind of their own to find out what was really going on in Canah… Whatever happened after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples, I don’t endorse anything that has been speculated. My point is only to verify the truth about Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene. If that’s true without the shadow of a doubt, we have only to be joyful that Jesus fulfilled also the commandment to get married and father children. Besides, a married man only adds to his honour for being so.

Ben:

Just in case there will be any Catholic who would question his/her faith because of this writing, please ask me about which part made made you confused. This is one funny work…LOL

 

[seintz]

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 .

I like it when you said Indeed ‘we are all entitled to our own opinion; however, we are not entitled to our own set of facts.’
two thumbs up!

 

[PaulDupre]

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.

Finally, a voice of reason in this thread from our elder brother in the faith. Thanks, Valke.

Paul

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi

I don’t agree with you that Jesus was forced anytime or by anybody on anything or for anything. Jesus did have a free will; otherwise he won’t be a human being; not to speak of a god. A forced sacrifice is no sacrifice; it would be suffering the tribulation, good for nothing, in my opinion. All in vain; and Jesus would be reduced only to a scapegoat.

Jesus had free will, but He chose to exercise His free will in obedience to the Father.

John 5:30
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

No one forced Him to sacrifice His life.

John 10:17-18
17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus had free will, but He chose to exercise His free will in obedience to the Father.

Hi

I think that makes him only a free man or a Messenger of God Allah YHWH; they all submit to the will of God submissively, for being an independent god one does not submit to anyone. To submit to anyother’s will is a defect for god, in my opinion.

Kindly express yourself with clarity and without any ambiguity, quoting from the scriptures both for the claim as well as for a reason/argument.

Your scriptures are supposed to be smarter than you, in my opinion.

I think you agree.

I love Jesus

Thanks

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just in case there will be any Catholic who would question his/her faith because of this writing, please ask me about which part made made you confused. This is one funny work…LOL

What makes me confused is that how you guys prefer to patch your eyes with faith and are so hard to give Reason
a chance. My research is based on facts of being Jewish. Since Jesus was an observant Jew, and declared himself to have come
with the purpose to observe all the Jewish laws, it’s only obvious
that he fulfilled also this one of the commandments. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Ben:

 

[PatienceAndLove]

What makes me confused is that how you guys prefer to patch your eyes with faith and are so hard to give Reason
a chance. My research is based on facts of being Jewish. Since Jesus was an observant Jew, and declared himself to have come
with the purpose to observe all the Jewish laws, it’s only obvious
that he fulfilled also this one of the commandments. (Mat. 5:17-19)

Ben:

Basically, it’s this-
If Jesus was married, it would have been recorded- after all, wasn’t his geneology, birth, first miracle, ministry, death and resurrection? Surely if his running away from home was recorded, so would his marriage!
Nothing of the sort was recorded.

Therefore, one can REASON that based on LACK of record, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was not married.

 

[Ben_Masada]

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

Would she say anything to Jesus about lack of wine if the guests had not complained?

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).

Read John 2:3. The text says thus in the KJV: “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus says to him, ‘They have no wine.’” The Catholic Saint Joseph’s edition of the New American version of the Bible says thus: “At a certain point, the wine ran out and Jesus’ mother told him, ‘They have no more wine.’” Now, anyone with a little of commonsense can imagine the guests almost drunk complaining about the lack of wine. Then, if the Groom was the one in charge to provide the wine, why didn’t Mary go to him but to Jesus? I know that’s hard for you to accommodate this fact in the life of Jesus but there is nothing we can do to erase it from the NT. Unless you tear the fourth gospel away and make do with three only.

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.

This gospel was swritten 60+ years after Jesus was gone, and not by John the Apostle. Give Reason the benefit of the doubt!

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.

Does self experience count in your agenda? I went through the same experience. I had a very similar wedding.

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.

Good! Now, give Reason a chance and think that the translator or editor, or the gospel writer himself, or even the Fathers of the Church found convenient to use the same word invited for the whole group, with perhaps the malicious intent to cloud the fact that that weeding was Jesus’.

Ben:

 

[benedictgal]

Thank you Benedictgal, you have authenticated my threat about the wedding of Jesus by bringing up that part of the headwaiter when he asked Jesus why he had to reserve the best wine for the end. Why did he ask Jesus and not the Bridegroom who was the one in charge to provide the wine for the occasion? Because Jesus was the Bridegroom.

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.

Now, since we are at it, I can personally attest for the custom that the Bridegroom was in charge to provide the wine before anything else, because I got married in Israel within an extremely traditional Yemenite family whose father of the Bride was a Rabbi.
And I was reminded of the custom for the Bridegroom to provide for the wine, which I only happily complied. Only that in my case,
I had to pay for it. I couldn’t turn water into wine. But it was a good
wine though.

The point is that if Jesus had not been the Bridegroom in that wedding, we would not have these two shouting evidences of the headwaiter addressing himself to Jesus about the wine, and of Jesus’ mother complaining to him about the lack of wine. She probably didn’t want her Bridegroom son to feel embarrassed for
failing with his responsibility. Thanks again pal. If there was any
doubt left in my mind, it’s gone.

No. Jesus only asked the men to fill the six stone jars in asceding to His Mother’s request. He did not have any conversation with the headwaiter. The headwaiter had the conversation with the groom, not with Jesus.

As others have mentioned, Jesus and His Mother were both invitede to the wedding at Cana.

1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. 7 Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. 9 And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, 10 And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Note that Jesus did not even talk to the headwaiter; the bridegroom did. You have misconstrued and misrepresented my post.

 

[swariffin]

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:

At first, I was disappointed with Pope Pius XII during WWII for not condemning the Nazi. Later, I found that he almost make Vatican went bankrupt for hiding the Jews from the Nazi.

I do hope that what John Paul II did would ease up the old wound you people has endured during the past.

Back to your posting. Act 15:5 did not say that the “converted” Pharisee were from the “high ranking” sanhedrin of the Jews.

BTW, can you help me on something? Do the Jews ever had a record that Mary the mother of Jesus ever being called as the Sister of Aaron? Sorry it is off topic.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Basically, it’s this-
If Jesus was married, it would have been recorded- after all, wasn’t his geneology, birth, first miracle, ministry, death and resurrection? Surely if his running away from home was recorded, so would his marriage!
Nothing of the sort was recorded.

Therefore, one can REASON that based on LACK of record, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, was not married.

Now, get busy and show me where it’s written that Jesus ran away from home.

Ben:

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Read John 2:3. The text says thus in the KJV: “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus says to him, ‘They have no wine.’” The Catholic Saint Joseph’s edition of the New American version of the Bible says thus: “At a certain point, the wine ran out and Jesus’ mother told him, ‘They have no more wine.’” Now, anyone with a little of commonsense can imagine the guests almost drunk complaining about the lack of wine. Then, if the Groom was the one in charge to provide the wine, why didn’t Mary go to him but to Jesus? I know that’s hard for you to accommodate this fact in the life of Jesus but there is nothing we can do to erase it from the NT. Unless you tear the fourth gospel away and make do with three only.

Now, here’s a question:
Gospel According to Saint John 2:3-4
And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.

Now… if Jesus WAS the Bridegroom, as you so carelessly insist, then why does He not care if there is more wine? If he was the Bridegroom, He would care.
That seems to derail your little “theory” just a bit.

Additionally-
Gospel According to Saint John 2: 8-10
And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now

Why would St. John refer to Jesus by name, and then refer to him as “the bridegroom”? Would he have no said “Jesus”?
Again- your explanation makes NO sense here.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Were all Jewish prophets married?

Was Prophet Elijah married?

Jews wanted to know if Jesus was Elijah come to life.

In the Gospel the mention is about Jesus being invited to a wedding. He was attending a wedding, not getting married Himself.

Why should it come as a surprise that Jesus chose to remain celibate? He knew that He did not have long to live and He had lots of work to complete before that. We know that He went about from village to village preaching, without a place of his own to rest His head.

John the Baptist was not married.

Is celibacy of one’s free will so rare in the world that it cannot be even imagined? In Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, for those who go in search of God, leaving the world and its norms behind, celibacy is normal. Jesus Christ or Catholicism didn’t invent celibacy for spiritual goals. Some Jewish prophets did not marry either. Celibacy is simply about having more time and energy to devote oneself fully to God’s work.

 

[Ben_Masada]

At first, I was disappointed with Pope Pius XII during WWII for not condemning the Nazi. Later, I found that he almost make Vatican went bankrupt for hiding the Jews from the Nazi.

Really! And where did the Vatican get so much money to pay for war criminal Nazis to run away to South America, especially Argentina?

I do hope that what John Paul II did would ease up the old wound you people has endured during the past.

We lost six million Jews. He could have done a whole lot more to persuade the born-Catholic Hitler to change his mind. What he did was a drop of water in the ocean of Jewish blood…

Back to your posting. Act 15:5 did not say that the “converted” Pharisee were from the “high ranking” sanhedrin of the Jews.

Pharisees were highly educated Jews. I said that they seated in the Nazarene’s Committee in Jerusalem. If you read the text, you probably did not understand it.

BTW, can you help me on something? Do the Jews ever had a record that Mary the mother of Jesus ever being called as the Sister of Aaron? Sorry it is off topic.

I did not say that Mary was a sister of Aaron. No, there is no such a record. The only thing closest to an identification of Mary with the Tribe of Levi is in Luke 1:5,36. That
Mary was a cousin or kinswoman to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. Since there is nothing stronger than this to identify her with the Tribe of Judah, we have no choice but to place
her in the Tribe of Levi.

Ben:

 

[PatienceAndLove]

And another thing…
The woman caught in adultery does not appear in the Gospel of St. John until the 8th chapter!
Wouldn’t it have been far more prudent for the author of the Gospel to have had this story appear much earlier in the gospel if this woman was Christ’s wife?

Additionally, as we can see from the account in verses 4&5:
“And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?”
Christ is quite well-known for His ministry by the time this account occurs. So it doesn’t really make sense that this woman is brought before Him AFTER the wedding feast.

Also, you have been relying on the Gospel of St. John.
I might point out that St. Mary Magdalen doesn’t really appear in the Gospel of St. John until the Crucifixion. Would it not make sense for her to be mentioned WAY before now?
The most mention this saint gets is her name listed with, “Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt 27:56) “the other Mary” Matt 27:61, 28:1), “Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome” (Mark 15:40, Mark 16:1)," Mary the mother of Joseph" (Mark 15:47), “Joanna, and Mary of James” (Luke 24:10), “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen” (John 19:25).
Out of all of these instances, the only time she is mentioned by herself is identifying who she is “Mary who is called Magdalen” (Luke 8:2) and then at the Tomb (John 20:, 20:18).

And if we look at the lists St. Mary Magdalen is included in, all of the woman are given signifiers- “His mother” “the other Mary” “the mother of Joseph”, “of James”. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that St. Mary Magdalen, were she the wife of Christ, be referred to as “Mary Madgalen, wife of Jesus” or some other signifier?

 

[adrift]

Really! And where did the Vatican get so much money to pay for war criminal Nazis to run away to South America, especially Argentina?

We lost six million Jews. He could have done a whole lot more to persuade the born-Catholic Hitler to change his mind. What he did was a drop of water in the ocean of Jewish blood…

Pharisees were highly educated Jews. I said that they seated in the Nazarene’s Committee in Jerusalem. If you read the text, you probably did not understand it.

I did not say that Mary was a sister of Aaron. No, there is no such a record. The only thing closest to an identification of Mary with the Tribe of Levi is in Luke 1:5,36. That
Mary was a cousin or kinswoman to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. Since there is nothing stronger than this to identify her with the Tribe of Judah, we have no choice but to place
her in the Tribe of Levi.

Ben:

You are being very dishonest. I notice you have yet to return to another thread where you are making these untrue accusations.

I will repeat here what I said there.

Quote:
the Vatican was issuing tens of thousands of false documents to allow Jews to pass secretly as Christians so they could escape the Nazis. What is more, the financial aid Pius XII helped provide the Jews was very real. Lichten, Lapide, and other Jewish chroniclers record those funds as being in the millions of dollars—dollars even more valuable then than they are now…“The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000.”[21] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

You keep claiming that you are a knowledgeable Jew. I think you had better now put up proof. I have checked with Jewish friends the things you have said. They say he couldn’t possibly be Jew. You have lost all credibility.

 

[paarsurrey]

Were all Jewish prophets married?

Was Prophet Elijah married?

Hi

Did Elijah or Jesus ever said that they won’t marry?

Kindly don’t make a guess work and please don’t try to impose your own thoughts or Paul’s mythycal philosophy on them. They had their own free will and were not a function of Paul’s blurred thinking , in my opinion.

Please quote from your scriptures for both the claim and resons/arguments, as your scriptures are supposed to be smarter than you, in my opinion. Do you agree on this?

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks