The Wedding of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paarsurrey said:
Hi

One betrayed; were the rest 11 present when Jesus was put on the Cross?

Thanks
Click to expand...
We know that based on the Gospel of St. John, that St. John was present at the Cross. St. Peter may have been looking on at a distance, but, the others fled, presumably hiding in the upper room where the Last Supper was held. Judas Iscariot hung himself during that time.
 
benedictgal said:
We know that based on the Gospel of St. John, that St. John was present at the Cross. St. Peter may have been looking on at a distance, but, the others fled, presumably hiding in the upper room where the Last Supper was held. Judas Iscariot hung himself during that time.
Click to expand...
Hi

So, of the eleven, only St.John and St.Peter were only present as you say. Hence, the rest nine also forsake Jesus.

Does Matthew mention that St.John and St.Peter were present at the scene of Crucifixion?

Thanks
 
Valke2 said:
I know that is what your scripture says. I don’t believe it. I think Paul was lying about that. I will post my reasons in more detail later. I want to find the thread where I first set them out.
Click to expand...
Ever notice how converts ALWAYS beef up their credentials?

“I was the MOST Catholic of all Catholics!”

“I was raised in a STRICT Orthodox Jewish home.”

:o
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

So, of the eleven, only St.John and St.Peter were only present as you say. Hence, the rest nine also forsake Jesus.

Does Matthew mention that St.John and St.Peter were present at the scene of Crucifixion?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Only ST. John was present we have gone over this with you before:mad:
 
Are you serious?

You are upholding the Wedding feast of Cana as Christ’s wedding?

That would be absurd considering;

John 2
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.

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.

1) The author speaks as though the Mother of the Jesus was there - as though by invitation - you wouldn’t see them write like this if it was the bridegroom’s mother.

2) It says Jesus was invited.
IF THIS WAS His own wedding - don’t you think it would be rather weird to suggest He was invited?

3) The chief steward called for the bridegroom - sitting in the same room as Jesus to begin with.

I hope this brings clarity to the subject - and if this was already mentioned i apologise.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

So, of the eleven, only St.John and St.Peter were only present as you say. Hence, the rest nine also forsake Jesus.

Does Matthew mention that St.John and St.Peter were present at the scene of Crucifixion?

Thanks
Click to expand...
SO are you going to exclude the women?
Or His own Mother?

Nevertheless - what does this have to do with the Wedding?

John 19
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
26 When Jesus therefore had** seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved**, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

Yes, His Apostles fled in fear - and especially Peter who denied Him 3 x’s, as He said he would.

Which is why when He rose from the dead He asked Peter 3 x’s if he loved Him…and each time concretely assigned the shepherdship to him…to take His place on earth and feed His sheep.

Note; HIS [ownership - possessive] sheep and lambs. Therefore Peter was to stand in the place of Jesus in His ministry to ‘feed’ or rather TEACH the people of Christ.

Does this help you?

Yes or no…?
 
WarriorAngel said:
Are you serious?

You are upholding the Wedding feast of Cana as Christ’s wedding?

That would be absurd considering;

John 2
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.

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.

1) The author speaks as though the Mother of the Jesus was there - as though by invitation - you wouldn’t see them write like this if it was the bridegroom’s mother.

2) It says Jesus was invited.
IF THIS WAS His own wedding - don’t you think it would be rather weird to suggest He was invited?

3) The chief steward called for the bridegroom - sitting in the same room as Jesus to begin with.

I hope this brings clarity to the subject - and if this was already mentioned i apologise.
Click to expand...
and let’s not forget about the conversation Jesus had with the people about marriage. when Jesus says: it would be good if they would be like Him celibato but not everyone could.

:highprayer: :byzsoc:
 
Ben,

What exactly is your purpose here? You obviously are not Catholic, and are not here to learn more about Catholicism or discuss Catholicism/Christianity in a loving, knowledge-seeking way. You are here to try and hurt the faith of the users of this site. Don’t deny it; we can see through you. You think that by planting this seed of doubt, you can get us to question our faith.

You fail to provide any substantial evidence for your claim that Jesus was married. There are huge holes in your argument:

Bethany was not the home of Mary Magdelene, and Mary sister of Lazarus and Martha is NOT the same person as Mary Magdelene. It is also not logically correct to say that loving feelings infer romance and sex, as it is possible to have deeply romantic relationships that are sexless (I pray that you have experienced this or will experience it sometime in your life, as it is very rewarding).

The text does not say that Jesus was married, and your argument that it does is completely fallacious. You say that because you are a Jewish man married in Israel, you know what the process is. While you can say that Jewish men are indeed called to take their brides, you cannot just assume that in spite of what the text says, that is what happened here. Because while Jewish men are called to take their brides, Jewish people are also frequently INVITED to Jewish weddings. It is therefore not more likely that he was being called to take a bride, just because you say that that’s what happened to you. It is very likely however that, as the text says, Jesus and his friends were invited to a wedding (something that happens all the time).

You misunderstand the meaning of “fulfillment of the law”. You seem to be confusing the phrase with “obeying the law”. As Christians, we believe the Christ IS God and therefore does not need to “obey the law”. The law is subordinate to Him, and fulfilled by Him. The Law of Moses is set in place so that humans can work not to offend God. In Christ, we have love. If we live by love, as Paul says, we do not need the letter of the law, because the law is fulfilled by default. You of course, don’t believe Christ is God. But as a Jew, would you hold God accountable by the law of Moses? No, because God is outside of the Law. He is only accountable to Himself, and, though the Law is part of Him, He is a mystery.

You don’t explain what Paul could possibly seek to gain by falsely propagating a virgin Christ; you provide no sources (besides the Gospels, which you questionably interpret and don’t even acknowledge as being valid outside of your needs), though it seems like most of your premises are based on a couple of fictional novels popular in the 20th and 21st centuries. You also seem to think that Paul invented Christianity, when in reality, he was a convert to the already existing Christianity. He spent much of the younger part of his adulthood persecuting Christians. In fact, he stood by and cheered while St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was stoned to death (he also held the coats of the people throwing the stones).

You do not acknowledge the opinions of anyone else and you scoff at factual evidence. You are flippant and smart. If you are not interested in learning on this site, then don’t expect us to give your hate-filled propaganda the time of day.

Pax! 👍
 
Ben_Masada said:
Do you think the Church would have allowed such an epitet (Mary the wife of Jesus) to pass the screening into
the Canon of the NT? You must be kidding!

Ben: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Ah- so your real intent has been revealed!
You are hear to tell us that our Scripture is wrong because it doesn’t fit your narrow definition of “truth”. Aweome
 
S_J_Thaikattil said:
Ben, Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD. Tradition has it that he preached in Edessa, Syria before he came to Kerala, India. Christianity in Kerala developed independent of Paul. I mentioned in an earlier post that Jesus had 12 disciples all of whom had been given the commandment to preach the good news of Jesus, by Jesus Himself.

So why do you go on and on about Paul. What is wrong with Paul anyway? He was a zealous Jewish pharisee who spent all his life after his conversion preaching to the Gentiles.
Click to expand...
Listen Thaikattil, I do not deny that the disciples of Jesus promoted his cause almost everywhere. In fact, there was never in the History of Israel a people more zelous in the business of proselytizing than the Nazarenes. Only the Chritianity
of the 4th Century overshadowed that missionary fervor. But I tell
you, their teaching was not Christian. It became Christian later as
almost all of Asia Minor had become with the work of Paul.

You ask what was wrong with Paul that I seem just not to give him a break. He was responsible for the rise of Christianity, which
has killed more of the Jewish People than any other institution from before and after it’s rising. Besides, Christianity promotes Replacement Theology and we Jews must rise to defend our place
under the sun.

Ben: 🤷
 
PatienceAndLove said:
Ah- so your real intent has been revealed!
You are hear to tell us that our Scripture is wrong because it doesn’t fit your narrow definition of “truth”. Aweome
Click to expand...
I haven’t given you my definition of the Truth yet.
According to Jesus himself in John 17:17, the Truth is the Word of God. But that, we all know. The question is to define who has it. If the book of Psalms means anything to you, read Psalm 147:19,20. It says in there that the Word of God was entrusted to Israel only and to no other people on earth. And Isaiah says in 2:2,3 that if the Gentiles want to get instructed in the Word of God, the address is Zion, the Jewish People. Can you refute that
with Biblical quotations without assumptions? If you can, I am all
ears.

Ben: 🙂
 
Ben_Masada said:
Listen Thaikattil, I do not deny that the disciples of Jesus promoted his cause almost everywhere. In fact, there was never in the History of Israel a people more zelous in the business of proselytizing than the Nazarenes. Only the Chritianity
of the 4th Century overshadowed that missionary fervor. But I tell
you, their teaching was not Christian. It became Christian later as
almost all of Asia Minor had become with the work of Paul.

You ask what was wrong with Paul that I seem just not to give him a break. He was responsible for the rise of Christianity, which
has killed more of the Jewish People than any other institution from before and after it’s rising. Besides, Christianity promotes Replacement Theology and we Jews must rise to defend our place
under the sun.

Ben: 🤷
Click to expand...
Some were Gallillean, and some this or that - i am exhausted and dont feel like going through it. But they were not Nazarenes. Only Jesus technically lived in Nazareth, but due to the fulfilment of the scriptures, He was born in Bethlehem. And was moved to Egypt. Then to Nazareth to be raised.

Second, the Jews and the gentiles were BOTH converted together.
Only the Jews who refused to acknowledge their Savior - refused to follow Him.
He fulfilled 300 of the Jewish prophecies…which one cannot do either accidentally, nor coincidentally.

This is why God set up the prophets BTW. He didnt do this because He was bored ya know?

IF you actually studied it, you might see it.

If the Jews are supposed to be still doing what they do - why arent you sacrificing animals in the Temple - the house of the Lord - where He dwells?

Why aren’t you rebuilding that Temple that Jesus said would be destroyed and was in 70 AD? [Because essentially it isnt useful after His oblation for all] but I would like these things answered.

Does the past 2000 years of passing generations think they were so excellent [contrary to their forefathers] that they need not do animal oblations now to atone for their sins?

IF God repeatedly allowed the punishment of Zion several times in the scriptures [even wanting to kill them before entering into Isreal - leading them 40 years longer than necessary to the Promised land]
What makes the past 2000 years any different?
Where are the atonements for their sins?
Where is the priest who alone may enter into the Temple Tabernachle with incense?
 
Another question - if as was decreed in 90 AD, that only genuine prophets would write in Hebrew [throwing out some of the canocal texts such as those written in Greek] - again in the Jewish council in 90 AD…
Where are your prophets now?

If the mark or sign is the Hebrew language and God allowed that language to die - now what?

Let’s see — God took away the Temple, He made the language extinct, He may have scattered the tribes of Isreal if they exist now, and if virgins actually exist. And
He didn’t give them any more prophets in 2000 years [quite a stretch of silence]

🤷

What’s really left for the Jews - but to see their Savior already saved them?
 
Ben_Masada said:
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.

After Jesus’ wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus’ come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene. Then, whenever Jesus would return from his missionary campains throughout Israel, the address was Bethany. To his wife obviously, although most the time Mary Magdalene would follow Jesus as his beloved disciple. The Church later interpolated John as the “beloved disciple” for the same reason to get the mind of the readers away from the thought that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

Do we have any evidence of a romantic approach prior or after their wedding? Of course, we do! After Jesus exorcized seven demons from Mary, she must have fallen in love with him. (Luke 8:1-3) The expression “seven demons” means the struggle that Jesus had to go through to extricate Mary from her not-so-reputable business in Magdala.

Then, in Bethany when Mary was smearing Jesus’ body with that expensive pefume, we all know, that Mary did not just throw that perfume at him from afar. Definitely not! she did smear him almost all over even in terms of massage, so much so that some of the guests thought it to be unbecoming. (Mat. 26:10-13)

Then, while everyone else would address Jesus as Rabbi, Mary would call him “Rabboni,” a colloquial term used as an expression of love, especially by a Rabbi’s wife. It also means “Master of my suffering,” as Rachel named her son Benoni before she died from child birth. (Gen. 35:18)

In another occasion, when Mary went to the tomb area after the crucifixion, and saw the empty tomb, she never suffered more in her life. She wanted to take him away with her. (John 20:15) Then, she was crying without consolation. In the middle of her travails, she saw a man standing by and throught to be the Gardener. “Why are you crying?” the man asked. Alas! She did not identify him; it was too dark. But then Jesus tried her name the way he used to call her: “Mary…!” It’s hard to say it in writing, but Mary melted all down and exclaimed" “Raboni!”

This term “Raboni”, or Master of my sufferings, is such a solemn and love-tender expression in Hebrew and Aramaic that only seldom is used out of the frame of deep love. It was then that she jumped to hug him but Jesus, probably all in bandages, forbade her to cause him any unnecessary pain. He would meet her later at more propitious circumstances. (John 20:17)

Then, after some apparitions to the disciples, Jesus said goodbye and left the company. From then on, the names of these three peoples were never mentioned again; Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus yes, but only in connection with his teachings by the Nazarenes, a Jewish Sect founded by his Apostles. Joseph had to go along because if he had stayed, he would probably be crucified for having cheated on Pilate regarding Jesus who was not dead when he took him off the cross.

The second speculation is that they left Israel in the direction of Cashmere, India, where a Russian Archaeologist is claimed to have found the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Joseph under the sign of the shield of David.

And the third, speculation is the one of the Da Vinci Code, that the three went to Europe and settled down in the Southern part of France in a small village. And that Mary gave birth to a daughter, who eventually got married into the Merovingian nobility.

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:
Click to expand...
Ben, I don’t want to be rude, but this is the most laughable thing I’ve read in a very long, long time. I think you believe it though, which is why I’m trying to stop laughing. You’ve been brainwashed by people who “twist the Scriptures to their own demise”. I’ll pray for you. Monica
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top