The Wedding of Jesus

[jblake]

swariffin;:

he would have declared that the OT is abrogated and corrupted,

That was Marcion. (Poor guy. Not even his followers could accept his theology in tota.)

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Ben Masada;:

Fathers of the Church when these selected the books which would take part in the Canon of the NT in 327 CE.

That is at least 175 years too late. Or did you not know that there were no substantial changes in what was considered to be canonical between circa 150 AD and 327?

There were many other books and gospels which were rejected because of their controversial character vis-a-vis the writings of Paul.

Wondering how Didache, Third Corinthians or EpLao can be described as controversial.

jonathon

 

[Mike_Dye]

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.

Today, there are three speculations about their whereabouts. The first is that they settled down incognito in Talpiot, a small town not too far south of Jerusalem, where some people have claimed to have found out the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Joseph. I went there personally but just to be told that the area could not be explored or visited by order of the local Meier for being under an Apartment building.

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.

Ben:

After years and years on this site I proudly present Ben Masada with Mike Dyes, “Most Wacky Post Ever in All Eternity Award”. Let It Be Known By All Present That No One Has Ever Presented A Less Thought Out Post As Ben’s and One That Could Ever Be Considered As Silly As This One.
Thanks Ben for all of the fun We all enjoy a good laugh now and then:thumbsup:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Continued…

You can never fully obey the Commandments by duty, because when you break one commandment, you break all of them. Humanity is fallen and can never keep the Commandments, apart from God’s help. God knows this, and that’s why He offers us grace in Christ, grace that we normally receive from the Sacraments, that enables and empowers us to keep the Commandments, so long as we freely cooperate with this grace.

And when you break the Law - because you do - what will happen? Don’t tell me that you are covered by the grace of Christ, and therefore, you are not under the condenation of the Law, because any Judge would be only ready to answer to you such a question. Can’t you see the cop-out here? Simply Pauline rhetoric.

Ben:

 

[Mike_Dye]

And when you break the Law - because you do - what will happen? Don’t tell me that you are covered by the grace of Christ, and therefore, you are not under the condenation of the Law, because any Judge would be only ready to answer to you such a question. Can’t you see the cop-out here? Simply Pauline rhetoric.

Ben:

SEE PREVIOUS POST

 

[jblake]

Ben Masada;:

Wherever the gospel of Christianity arrived, the holy books of the host religions were either recollected and hidden or destroyed out of the way of Christianity.

The odd thing is that even where Christianity was on the losing side, there is nothing that supports your hypothesis.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Ben Masada;:

That’s not Jewish. Since Jesus was Jewish, this never happened. He never said such a thing.

Do you have anything other than contemporary Rabbinical Judaism to support your hypothesis?

That Mary had to be there, it’s because the Magdalene’s parents were probably dead.

“Mary of Magdala” as the name of a woman, breaks virtually every rule about how a woman is to be identified. It literally implies that not only her parents, but all of her relatives, and potential protectors, had either disowned her, or were deceased.

Neither of those conditions makes her presence there mandatory. Indeed, had she been disowned by her family, the odds of her being present go down even more.

jonathon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I find this post interesting that the OP attaches the title “Rabbi” to Jesus as if this title given him from Jews who do not know who he is yet? as the only one given him.

Jesus was also called other names in scripture “Son of David”, “Son of the living God”, “Messiah”, “Elija”, “John the baptist returned from the dead”, “IAM”, “God” from John 20:28 “Lord”, “Teacher”, “KIng of the Jews”, “Emmanuel” (God with us).

What say the OP and can you explain these meanings of titles of Jesus? not only given to Jesus but believed by the first century Jewish communities.

As far as the wedding of Cana as an earlier poster mentioned, Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding.

John records his gospel in relation to a creation theme, thus you have the first day, next day’s, third day leading up to the Seventh day of creation. These are not events in the time of a single day, just as Genesis describes Creation in days, does not neccessary equate days in a 24 hour period.

The wedding feast at Cana relates to Jesus fulfilling the Old Covenant (wedding) which ran out of wine, and Jesus bringing in a New Covenant (wedding between God’s people and God) of the best tasting wine which was reserved for the Last, this New Covenant wine came from the Old Covenant ceremonial water Jars. There is much more here than the letter of the page, that is why the Holy Spirit reveals these realities to those who have eyes and ears to hear.

 

[planten]

Originally Posted by Ben Masada
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.

**The news is interesting. If what is written in the bibleNT is true then it was not the marraige of Jesus. But there is much doubt about the writings of the bibleNT. There are many faulty things in that.

The Catholic posters here have admitted that bible is not the word of God. That Jesus was not given any bible. And he also did not give it to any one. So there goes the truth (authenticity) of the bible. I do not knwo what is wrong with the christians. They have almost disowned the bibleNT and left it to the memory of some anonymus writers.

In such a situation, please compare the bibleNT with the Torah and the Quran. The Torah and the Quran are at least believed (claimed) to be from God.

If the words of bibleNT are to believed then the marriage at Cana was not of Jesus. But it is highly doubtful that the news (words) given in bibleNt are True. The words in of th ebible may have been suitably manipulated to give an impression that it was not the marriage of Jesus. Even today, the words of bible are being changed daily to suit the wishes of the church. I have a few example with me.

Ben is right that the marriage was that of Jesus himself.**

 

[Ben_Masada]

Jesus was also called other names in scripture “Son of David”, “Son of the living God”, “Messiah”, “Elija”, “John the baptist returned from the dead”, “IAM”, “God” from John 20:28 “Lord”, “Teacher”, “KIng of the Jews”, “Emmanuel” (God with us).

QUOTE]

And everything recorded 50+ years after he had been gone. That’s just too convenient to the Church but not the truth.

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

Do you have anything other than contemporary Rabbinical Judaism to support your hypothesis?

Jesus was Jewish; and anthing not-Jewish about him is interpolation from outside Judaism.

“Mary of Magdala” as the name of a woman, breaks virtually every rule about how a woman is to be identified. It literally implies that not only her parents, but all of her relatives, and potential protectors, had either disowned her, or were deceased.

What would that mean for a man in love?

Neither of those conditions makes her presence there mandatory. Indeed, had she been disowned by her family, the odds of her being present go down even more.

The text does not say that she was not there. Perhaps that she was alone and left out by the family as you suggest, could be an added reason why she is not mentioned. Besides, in Jewish Orthodox weddings, the Bride is seldom mentioned. A matter of Jewish decorum.

Ben:

jonathon

 

[Ben_Masada]

The odd thing is that even where Christianity was on the losing side, there is nothing that supports your hypothesis.

jonathon

What did want, an opinion of another man? You want to hear this from a Catholic. What did you expect he or she
wuld say?

Ben:

 

[Ben_Masada]

After years and years on this site I proudly present Ben Masada with Mike Dyes, “Most Wacky Post Ever in All Eternity Award”. Let It Be Known By All Present That No One Has Ever Presented A Less Thought Out Post As Ben’s and One That Could Ever Be Considered As Silly As This One.
Thanks Ben for all of the fun We all enjoy a good laugh now and then:thumbsup:

Well, at least I have made you happy. Today you
laugh. I hope you won’t have to cry when you find out that you have lost the time of your life.

Ben:

 

[planten]

Gabriel of 12;4847445:

Jesus was also called other names in scripture “Son of David”, “Son of the living God”, “Messiah”, “Elija”, “John the baptist returned from the dead”, “IAM”, “God” from John 20:28 “Lord”, “Teacher”, “KIng of the Jews”, “Emmanuel” (God with us).

QUOTE]

And everything recorded 50+ years after he had been gone. That’s just too convenient to the Church but not the truth.

Ben:

**Very well said Ben. Jesus had very little time (three years only) with his men. He could not finish the job. He was caught too quickly. After he left, people made up stories about him that he was this and he was that…

Paul entered the field and took charge of everything. He was nobody**.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

Though Jesus was never a physical King; he had no kingdom with any specifically defined boundaries, in my opinion, yet the anonymous Gospel named after Matthew very fondly tries to relate, and tries to establish that Jesus was Son of David, the physical as well religious king of Jews, who had a physical kingdom with physical boundary, in my opinion.

Needless to mention that Matthew seems to be a confused person; he mentions many persons whose son Jesus was (Adam, David, Joseph and Catholic-god-father, correct me if I am wrong, please). In physical terms Jesus was son of no male person, as I understand from the truthful Quran; Jesus was son of blessed Mary only, in my opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nevertheless to make Jesus a son of the great King David; Matthew made a lot of effort to relate Jesus to King David, in my opinion, which should be appreciated. I think he might have in his mind that David had many wives, estimated at eight to the least, so must Jesus have, perhaps; like father like son.

So, there is no harm if Jesus had at least less than half, I think three at least. Might be as our friend Ben Masada says, Mary Magdalene was one, and one in the Afghans and another in Kashmir. Jesus had to go to far-off places, where might be he could not take the families and children along, so he had to marry to get social with, and there was no harm in doing so, as per the David’s line, in my opinion. Jesus was a holy person; if he married, that would increase still more holy persons in the world from his lineage, in my opinion.

This was until he died, according to some traditions at the age of 120/125 years and is buried at Mohallah Khanyar, Sirinagar, Kashmir, India, in my opinion.

Others could believe diffrently, no compulsion, with reason.

Jesus could assert himself for his claims and reasons; he needed no Paul/s, in my opinion; I love Jesus for his wisdom. Jesus feared nobody except GodAllahYHWH whose humble servant Jesus was, in my opinion. I also love blessed Mary

Thanks

P.s.: Wives of King David
• I Chronicles 3. In a few sentences it lists all descendants of King David, from his 11 children by 7 wives to descendants of King Solomon, some 30 generations. I Samuel also mentions another wife.
• Eight wives were named in the Bible, but there were numerous other wives that were not named.
• Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail the Carmelitess, Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Michal, and Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel. wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wives_did_King_David_of_the_Old_Testament_have_and_what_were_their_names

 

[Ben_Masada]

Hi

Though Jesus was never a physical King; he had no kingdom with any specifically defined boundaries, in my opinion, yet the anonymous Gospel named after Matthew very fondly tries to relate, and tries to establish that Jesus was Son of David, the physical as well religious king of Jews, who had a physical kingdom with physical boundary, in my opinion.

Needless to mention that Matthew seems to be a confused person; he mentions many persons whose son Jesus was (Adam, David, Joseph and Catholic-god-father, correct me if I am wrong, please). In physical terms Jesus was son of no male person, as I understand from the truthful Quran; Jesus was son of blessed Mary only, in my opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nevertheless to make Jesus a son of the great King David; Matthew made a lot of effort to relate Jesus to King David, in my opinion, which should be appreciated. I think he might have in his mind that David had many wives, estimated at eight to the least, so must Jesus have, perhaps; like father like son.

So, there is no harm if Jesus had at least less than half, I think three at least. Might be as our friend Ben Masada says, Mary Magdalene was one, and one in the Afghans and another in Kashmir. Jesus had to go to far-off places, where might be he could not take the families and children along, so he had to marry to get social with, and there was no harm in doing so, as per the David’s line, in my opinion. Jesus was a holy person; if he married, that would increase still more holy persons in the world from his lineage, in my opinion.

This was until he died, according to some traditions at the age of 120/125 years and is buried at Mohallah Khanyar, Sirinagar, Kashmir, India, in my opinion.

Others could believe diffrently, no compulsion, with reason.

Jesus could assert himself for his claims and reasons; he needed no Paul/s, in my opinion; I love Jesus for his wisdom. Jesus feared nobody except GodAllahYHWH whose humble servant Jesus was, in my opinion. I also love blessed Mary

Thanks

P.s.: Wives of King David
• I Chronicles 3. In a few sentences it lists all descendants of King David, from his 11 children by 7 wives to descendants of King Solomon, some 30 generations. I Samuel also mentions another wife.
• Eight wives were named in the Bible, but there were numerous other wives that were not named.
• Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, Abigail the Carmelitess, Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Michal, and Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel. wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_wives_did_King_David_of_the_Old_Testament_have_and_what_were_their_names

Hey, take it easy Paarsurrey, don’t you think you
are letting your imagination go too wild? Speculation within a certain measure based on the little that there is, can build to a lot. But if we don’t keep imagination on the leash it can even spoil what we have constructed. Don’t you think so?

Ben: Your avid reader.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hey, take it easy Paarsurrey, don’t you think you
are letting your imagination go too wild? Speculation within a certain measure based on the little that there is, can build to a lot. But if we don’t keep imagination on the leash it can even spoil what we have constructed. Don’t you think so?

Ben: Your avid reader.

Hi

I agree with you.

Thanks

 

[jblake]

Ben Masada;:

Jesus was Jewish; and anything not-Jewish about him is interpolation from outside Judaism.

Is that an admission that the only support for your hypothesis is Contemporary Rabbinical Judaism?

What would that mean for a man in love?

Inasmuch as marriage was as much an economic union between two families, as a joining of two individuals, approval from both families would more or less be required.

The text does not say that she was not there.

Inasmuch as she is not mentioned in any of the Canonical Gospels,until after the wedding in Cana, the evidence suggests that they didn’t meet until after that event.

She first appears in Matthew 26:27 as a witness tothe crucifixion.

She first appears in Mark 15:40, where she was a witness tothe crucifixion.

She first appears in Luke 8:20, where she was healed of unclean spirits.

The wedding in Cana is recorded in John 2.(Cana is only mentioned in the Gospel of John.)

Mary of Magdala first appears in John 19:25 as a witness to the crucifixion.

For the “Mary of Magdala wrote the Gospel of John” advocates, the first time the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was used, was after the mention of Mary of Magdala as a witness to the crucifixion, in John 19:26.
This is followed by:; "Joh 20:1 n the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
Joh 20:2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him.”

Perhaps that she was alone and left out by the family as you suggest, could be an added reason why she is not mentioned.

Using either Canonical New Testament sources, or pseudopigraphical sources, no timeline can be constructed, that supports the hypothesis the Jesus met Mary of Magdala prior to the wedding in Cana.

Cana and Magdala are roughly twenty kilometers apart.
Cana and Bethany are roughly 114 kilometers apart.

Besides, in Jewish Orthodox weddings, the Bride is seldom mentioned. A matter of Jewish decorum.

You cite a custom from modern Rabbinical Judaism. Do you have a source from Biblical times to support that claim?

jonathon

 

[jblake]

planten;:

Ben Masada;:

And everything recorded 50+ years after he had been gone. That’s just too convenient to the Church but not the truth.

After he left, people made up stories about him that he was this and he was that…

If tradition is correct, then Thomas went to India with the Gospel of Matthew in 52 AD. That means it was written within 25 years of Jesus death.

If you pay attention to the external sources, one can date the writing of virtually the entire New Testament to before 70 AD, which is less than forty years after the death of Jesus.

Paul entered the field and took charge of everything. He was nobody

Paul claims to have persecuted Christians prior to his conversion. At least one academic thinks that there is enough evidence to suggest that he was an eye witness to the crucifixion.

jonathon

 

[Ben_Masada]

Is that an admission that the only support for your hypothesis is Contemporary Rabbinical Judaism?

Analisis by deduction. Judaism is a religion that evolves. From Modern Judaism, anyone who is able to think straight can deduce social and religious behaviour.

Inasmuch as marriage was as much an economic union between two families, as a joining of two individuals, approval from both families would more or less be required.

Not necessarily. Cases like the one of Jesus are quite common.

Inasmuch as she is not mentioned in any of the Canonical Gospels,until after the wedding in Cana, the evidence suggests that they didn’t meet until after that event.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned about the “seven
demons” Jesus expelled out of her. It’s only obvious that it was much before their wedding…

For the “Mary of Magdala wrote the Gospel of John” advocates, the first time the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” was used, was after the mention of Mary of Magdala as a witness to the crucifixion, in John 19:26.

Totally impossible that Mary of Magdalene ever wrote the gospel of John. The writer of this gospel was one of Paul’s disciples.

This is followed by:; "Joh 20:1 n the first day of the week, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw the stone removed from the tomb.
Joh 20:2 So she ran and went to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and told them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they put him.”

Here we have an evidence that Mary had never heard about resurrection from the lips of Jesus. Otherwise, she would not have thought suddenly that someone had removed Jesus from the tomb. Why didn’t she think of resurrection? It’s obvious.

Using either Canonical New Testament sources, or pseudopigraphical sources, no timeline can be constructed, that supports the hypothesis the Jesus met Mary of Magdala prior to the wedding in Cana.

Congratulation for uncovering another contradiction in the NT, because there is no way that he exorcised seven demons from Mary after the wedding.

You cite a custom from modern Rabbinical Judaism. Do you have a source from Biblical times to support that claim?

Would you accept anything I say as a source of that time? I didn’t think so. So, why ask for the opinion of another man? Any intelligent Jew can figure Judaism of two thousand years ago through the evolution of Judaism to modern times.

Ben:

jonathon