The Wedding of Jesus

[paarsurrey]

Originally posted by S J Thaikattil:
Apostle Thomas I call Thomas the Scientist, not Thomas the Doubter. A scientist believes when the evidence is presented, that is what Apostle Thomas did when Jesus presented the evidence of His Resurrection. To believe that does not require blind faith, merely trust that Apostle Thomas was not a liar.

Sorry but you are the personification of contradiction. You speak of being scientist, to connect faith with reason, to speak of evidences. And where on earth, that wounds in a body are evidences of resurrection? Those wounds as Luke says in Acts 1:3 were evidences of Jesus’ suffering and not of resurrection. And yes, you might be right, but that Jesus was resuscitated and not resurrected.

Ben:

Hi

I here appriciate view of our friend S J Thaikattil that she considers St. Thomas a scientist; though our Catholic friends usually prefer Paul over St. Thomas and describe him as Doubting Thomas.

I think she must have some goog reason behind her view.

i love Jesus, Mary and Second Coming 1835-1908

Thanks

 

[Ben_Masada]

Chaldean Rite and S J Thaikattil,

I think the misunderstanding between you both was based on which interpretive sense you were using for the Wedding at Cana text. CR is looking at the spiritual sense of interpretation, whereas SJ is looking at the literal sense of interpretation.

This thread originally was based on the fictional assumption or error of Ben Masada and later paarsurrey on the Wedding of Cana as being literally interpreted to mean the physical natural wedding between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This is the original error of this thread, to which Catholics here were trying to rebut.

By the way, CR is not a heretic because he’s not saying that Jesus literally and physically married His mother Mary and slept with her as His wife, that is, naturally. He’s using a spiritual interpretation that is allowed among other allowable interpretations of the text.

The confusion comes in, in that, everyone else like SJ was looking at the literal interpretation of the text in order to rebut the error of Ben Masada and paarsurrey, and when a spiritual interpretation was brought up, the confusion unfortunately occurred.

So, SJ is right and CR is right, depending on which sense of interpretation one is using.

By the way, I wrote a paper for my university theology class that touched a little bit on this topic, using the great marital text of Ephesians 5 as a framework.

In the Chaldean Catholic Church of the East, there is a poem that is sung, and it goes like this:

---

In the name of the Father, and of the Son,
And of the life giving Holy Spirit,
O Three Qnome is One Kyana,
Assist your servant.

Help me O Father to sing,
To honor Your Daughter,
To thank the Mother of Your Son,
And to tell about the Bride of Your Spirit.​

Why do I bring up this poem? It highlights the traditional understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary in relation to the Holy Trinity.

She is traditionally called the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, but since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ, then in this sense one can see how typologies like New Adam and New Eve can work in the spiritual sense as a reference between Jesus and Mary, that is, the Spirit of Jesus and the soul of Mary.

Anyways, this sort of theological and spiritual ascension is beyond the grasp of Jews and Muslims, and so beyond the grasp of this thread.

God bless,

Rony

“The error of Ben Masada!” If Jesus was not married because explicitly we don’t read the words that Jesus was married, you can’t find anywhere either that he was not married. So, do you prefer to have him as an unemployed single man rooming around for almost four years with 12 guys? Can’t you imagine the demaging speculations you submit Jesus to?

Jesus was an Orthodox Jew. If he was a Rabbi, he was married.
If he was not married, he was a lazy unemployed man killing the
time of his life around with 12 others lazy unemployed men. Now,
you take your pick and choose what Jesus is worthy credibility.

What’s the matter with picturing Jesus in our minds married to Mary Magdalene, whom we all know he loved her so? Is this jealousy to share him with someone who loved him to death? Please, let’s discard the patches off our eyes and allow Reason to prevail!

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Perhaps you can summarize Ben’s opinion and yours for me. This thread is already too long for me to read all of the postings. I am a kind of late of paying attention on this thread. Ben, do you mind that we go back to your OP? I am interested in engaging your thread.

Just read the thread and tell me what you think. I don’t think you need to go over all the posts on this thread. You will be able to have pretty much a good idea about the issue at hand.

Good luck!

Ben:

 

[ronyodish]

I was reading the logical and reasonable posts of friend Ben Masada. I think I have not mentioned yet that I believe the marriage of Jesus with Mary Magdalene did or did not happen; though the possiblity perhaps is there.

This is just to clarify.

The issue rests with the Catholics; the onus of giving proof rests with the Catholics, in my opinion. If our Catholic friends believe that Jesus was one of the perfect men; then they shall have to prove that Jesus did marry and had children. I see that our friend Ben Masada is , in my opinion, in fact helping our Catholic friends that Jesus did marry; though he has not yet mentioned that they had any children also.

paarsurrey,

In another thread, I asked the following question, to which you have not yet responded:

If you believe that Jesus had an actual wife and children, what were their names?

I’m asking you this question because you are making a claim with no historical backing. If you claim that Jesus had actually and physically married a woman, and had children with her, then you should back up your claim with historically reliable information.

So, I would like you to tell us the name of the wife, the tribe from which the wife comes from, the names and number of the children, the names and number of their grandchildren.

The onus of giving proof rests with you my friend, because of your fictional claim that Jesus had a wife and children. The onus of proof also rests with you my friend, because of your fictional claim that a perfect man has to be married and with children. The onus of proof again rests with you my friend, because of your fictional claim that Jesus is a mere man and not the God-Man as He taught: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

I love the real Jesus and Mary of Christianity, and not the fictional Jesus and Mary of Ahmadi Muslims!

God bless,

Rony

 

[Ben_Masada]

We believe Jesus is God not just a perfect man. It is your belief that a man who is perfect must be married. There has only been one perfect man, that being Jesus. He was not married therefor your assertion that a perfect man is married is unfounded.

Oh! It means that to be a married man or woman
one degrades him or herself from perfection. Believe me, I thought the opposite was true. As a group, should I remind you of the kind of people are the unmarried ones? I didn’t think so.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

I have been surprised by that claim for I have read it elsewhere too that Jews have more in common with Muslims than with Christians. So why is there so much conflict in the Middle East I wonder. Can someone enlighten me? Ben? PaarSurrey? (OK. I am prepared to read fiction just this one more time.)

Sorry Thaikattil, but I am not in the mood to change the subject of this thread into Politics.

Ben:

 

[ronyodish]

“The error of Ben Masada!” If Jesus was not married because explicitly we don’t read the words that Jesus was married, you can’t find anywhere either that he was not married. So, do you prefer to have him as an unemployed single man rooming around for almost four years with 12 guys? Can’t you imagine the demaging speculations you submit Jesus to?

Ben,

There is no teaching in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that Jesus was physically married to a lady, and had children with her. The teaching of Scripture and Tradition is that Jesus was married to the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ.

It is not about what I prefer or don’t prefer, it is about what has been handed down from Christ and His Apostles. There is no Apostolic Teaching that Christ had naturally married, and slept with, Mary Magdalene or any other woman.

Jesus was an Orthodox Jew. If he was a Rabbi, he was married.
If he was not married, he was a lazy unemployed man killing the
time of his life around with 12 others lazy unemployed men. Now,
you take your pick and choose what Jesus is worthy credibility.

Jesus was no regular Rabbi like any other Rabbi. He was the Teacher of all men, and was not confined to the roles of Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism. There are many things that Jesus did that bewildered his contemporary Pharisees. Again, it’s not what we pick and choose as the more politically correct and credibly worthy Jesus in your eyes. It is what has been handed down to us. It was never handed down to us that Christ had naturally married a lady, and had children with her.

We don’t have the authority to fictionally embellish the life of Jesus and make Him more appealing to the natural sensibilities of Jews and Muslims, and their grace-absent views. It is about the Apostolic Faith and what has been taught about the life of Christ and the Apostles, handed down through Apostolic Succession, and taught in the Church for two thousand years.

What’s the matter with picturing Jesus in our minds married to Mary Magdalene, whom we all know he loved her so? Is this jealousy to share him with someone who loved him to death? Please, let’s discard the patches off our eyes and allow Reason to prevail!

That’s the problem, it is a picturing in your mind, a fictional imagination of your mind, a historically-devoid fantasy that you’re living in, and not the constant teaching about Christ that has been handed down for two thousand years. The teaching of Christ’s Church is that the Church is Christ’s Bride, and that’s the Faith. Reason and Faith do not contradict each other, because they both originate in God, but what you’re doing with this thread is not reason, but a picturing, a figment of your natural and fictional imagination!

God bless,

Rony

 

[adrift]

Oh! It means that to be a married man or woman
one degrades him or herself from perfection. Believe me, I thought the opposite was true. As a group, should I remind you of the kind of people are the unmarried ones? I didn’t think so.

Ben:

Assumption is not a good thing so yes you will have to name the group about which you are thinking. For I cannot think of a single group that you might be speaking about. The sentence about says that you believe to be married is degrading oneself from perfection? There are many in my life that are unmarried. Are they perfect? No. I know many married are they perfect? No. But we might mean something different by perfection.

 

[LilyM]

Oh! It means that to be a married man or woman
one degrades him or herself from perfection. Believe me, I thought the opposite was true. As a group, should I remind you of the kind of people are the unmarried ones? I didn’t think so.

Ben:

Not one whit better or worse than the married, I can assure you. Just different in some ways.

We Catholics know that from a lifetime of experience with them - priests and nuns and monks. So would you if your culture didn’t place such an emphasis on being married and think it such a shame to be unmarried.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Ben,

There is no teaching in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that Jesus was physically married to a lady, and had children with her. The teaching of Scripture and Tradition is that Jesus was married to the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ.

It is not about what I prefer or don’t prefer, it is about what has been handed down from Christ and His Apostles. There is no Apostolic Teaching that Christ had naturally married, and slept with, Mary Magdalene or any other woman.

Jesus was no regular Rabbi like any other Rabbi. He was the Teacher of all men, and was not confined to the roles of Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism. There are many things that Jesus did that bewildered his contemporary Pharisees. Again, it’s not what we pick and choose as the more politically correct and credibly worthy Jesus in your eyes. It is what has been handed down to us. It was never handed down to us that Christ had naturally married a lady, and had children with her.

We don’t have the authority to fictionally embellish the life of Jesus and make Him more appealing to the natural sensibilities of Jews and Muslims, and their grace-absent views. It is about the Apostolic Faith and what has been taught about the life of Christ and the Apostles, handed down through Apostolic Succession, and taught in the Church for two thousand years.

That’s the problem, it is a picturing in your mind, a fictional imagination of your mind, a historically-devoid fantasy that you’re living in, and not the constant teaching about Christ that has been handed down for two thousand years. The teaching of Christ’s Church is that the Church is Christ’s Bride, and that’s the Faith. Reason and Faith do not contradict each other, because they both originate in God, but what you’re doing with this thread is not reason, but a picturing, a figment of your natural and fictional imagination!

God bless,

Rony

I had to pop in a tell you that i am applauding your post.
Excellent!

 

[ronyodish]

I had to pop in a tell you that i am applauding your post.
Excellent!

Thanks

God bless,

Rony

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

There is no teaching in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that Jesus was physically married. The teaching of Scripture and Tradition is that Jesus was married to the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ.

 

[adrift]

ronyodish;4832954:

Ben,

Is there anything in the NT that Jesus was not married? So, we are back to square one. Married to the Church! That’s Pauline rhetoric that butters no bread.

Again! Okay, I repeat my question: Is there anything in the teachings of the Apostles that Jesus was not naturally married? I didn’t think so. Therefore, we are back to square one.

Do you know something? Please, don’t take this as an offense, but you don’t have a mind of your own. You can’t think. You have decided that you can see only what your church tells you to.

Sorry, but your Apostolic succession started with Paul, and the Apostles of Jesus never had anything to do
with it.

Ben:

I have yet to see you substantiate anything all of it is just blah blah blah. It is you who is making the assertion. You need to provide proof. There is no evidence that He was married. Just because you are disagreed with does not mean that we don’t think on our own. Your statement of Apostolic succession has nothing to do with this thread. It is your habit to do that in all your threads. I guess when you can’t respond to the evidence against you change the subject?

 

[planten]

Sorry Thaikattil, but I am not in the mood to change the subject of this thread into Politics.

Ben:

**That was your reply to SJT. I also think that we should not bring in any politics in these discussions. Faith discussion is enough and we would all like to know from the Catholics why the church people do not like that Jesus be married. It is just their (?) wishes. That is not fair.

Jesus is human too, performing all functions related to human beings. Why not be married too? This thinking of being un-married has put the christianity on a bad (un-natural) track.
**

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would dispute Paul’s backgound. There’s some indication that he was not exactly the most learned of Jews and I had discussed this at length in an older thread. Having said that, I’m sure he knew enough to recognize the importance of marriage in the Jewish community.

Huh?

Acts 22:3
Then Paul said: 3"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, but your Apostolic succession started with Paul, and the Apostles of Jesus never had anything to do with it.

Ben:

Really?

Clement of Rome (AD 30-100), who is mentioned in 1 Corinthians, succeeded Peter as the fourth Bishop of Rome, and he wrote:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 120-200), who was a disciple of Polycarp (the disciple of the Apostle John), wrote the following:

"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…

Hmmm…neither of these two were disciples of Paul yet they testify to Apostolic Succession.

What say, Ben?

 

[planten]

**There is a good question here from Ben to all the Catholics about Jesus not being married. Of course, there is no news of his marriage in the Gospels. There is also no news of any disciples marriage in the gospels. So shall we be justified to believe that none of the disciples was married?

I feel that it is only the wishful thinking of the Catholics slightly supported by the gospels that Jesus was not married. There is also no news that Jesus was not married.

The Catholics are tied down to the NT which has been handed down to them from ages ago. We let them believe on assumption that Jesus was not married. In the meantime we will be all the more strict in our belief that he was Married**.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The issue rests with the Catholics; the onus of giving proof rests with the Catholics, in my opinion. If our Catholic friends believe that Jesus was one of the perfect men; then they shall have to prove that Jesus did marry and had children. I see that our friend Ben Masada is , in my opinion, in fact helping our Catholic friends that Jesus did marry; though he has not yet mentioned that they had any children also.

False.

This is a Catholic forum. We have the home field advantage. The teachings of the Catholic Church (and indeed of all Christendom) are clear.

If you disagree with our positions, then you must prove your case. The burden of proof is upon you.

Naturally, if I were visiting an Ahmadi or Jewish forum, then it would be encumbent upon me to prove my case counter to the prevailing opinion of those forums.

Good luck to you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here’s another thing that doesn’t gel as far as Ben Masada’s interpretation. ‘the mother of Jesus was there’. If it was Jesus’ wedding OF COURSE she’d be there! There’d be no need to specifically mention that she was there if she was mother of the groom.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham foreshadows no sacrifice of Jesus. Isaac was only to foreshadow the role of Israel in the Counsel of God. Isaak was the prototype of Israel, the People that came out of him. You insert Jesus on an individual basis as a result of assumptions. And I tell you why. Because you assume that Jesus was the only Jew the Romans crucified. Why don’t you read Josephus? Thousands of Jews were crucified by the Romans in the very same manner Jesus was crucified. The blood of the others doesn’t count?

Ben-

This thread is not about the holocaust. We know it happened. It was horrific, and no one disputes that. However, you don’t need to rub our noses in it every third post, okay? None of us are Nazis and none of us were at Auschwitz or Buchenwald. We’re not personally guilty of the Sho’ah just as you are not personally guilty of having killed the Christ. Fair?

Now, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is a foreshadowing of God the Father’s sacrifice of His own son, Jesus. Except that God allowed the sacrifice to occur whereas God stopped Abraham just in time. But God provided the sacrifice for Abraham, too; the ram caught by its horns, remember?

Jesus is the Lamb of God that was slain, but the mere shedding of the lamb is not enough, is it? The Law requires the you EAT the lamb, standing, ready for flight.

We, too, eat the lamb in our Eucharistic celebrations just as you eat the Passover lamb. Jesus said, “This is my body…this is my blood” and through the transubstantiation that occurs at the consecration of the bread and wine, the body and blood of Jesus is made present.

Now, back to original post of this thread.

Why were Jesus and his disciples invited to Jesus’ own wedding? Jesus was not “called” as you have claimed, to enter into the wedding vows, etc. - no, Jesus AND his disciples were called/invited. This wasn’t Jesus’ wedding, was it? :nope:

Why does the Bible specifically mention that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was there? Wouldn’t this be expected if her only son were getting married? Was your mom at your wedding? Was she invited, or did she invite her friends?

There was a wedding at Cana, and Jesus’ mother was there; Jesus and his disciples were also invited.

This wasn’t Jesus’ wedding, was it? :nope:

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

Jesus, a Jewish man, claimed to be the messiah, to be God. All of his Jewish friends believed him.

This is not Greek mythology; this is Judaism fulfilled.