The Wedding of Jesus

[OneTrueCathApos]

I know. But even if it weren’t, it still **could not **be Mary because it says “he”.

It was just a quick way to prove my point. Not a doubt as to whom the disciple is.

 

[simplynoone]

Not a doubt as to whom the disciple is.

This does not make it true just because you say you have no doubt. All it shows is that you have allowed others to do your thinking for you. Show me one passage that would leave you without a doubt that it was John. Since you all require proof, where is your proof that it was who you claim it to be so assuredly. If you have no doubt, this means that arriving to your conclusion should have been able to have been done so without it ever having been told to you outside the Scriptures; otherwise, it is still speculations and AGAIN, that you trust it so ademently, shows that you are trusting man’s wisdom over God’s wisdom.

 

[simplynoone]

No, it says it is John.

Now prove this by showing us where.

 

[Ginger2]

This does not make it true just because you say you have no doubt.

Doesn’t matter. We are not discussing what I believe. We are discussing what you claimed about Mary M being the disciple whom Jesus loved and that supposedly proves Jesus was married to her.

But the Disciple whom Jesus loved was a man, so it couldn’t be Mary M.

 

[simplynoone]

I seem to remember someone saying that Mary Magdalene could not be at the Passover Feast. I can not find it now, but it is there. This goes to show that some of you do not bother searching the Scriptures since clearly in John 13:1, it is stated that it was a meal BEFORE the passover feast. Also, in the chapter discussing the woman anointing Jesus, immediately after was when Judas left to go make the exchange of Jesus for the silver. Immediately after the question of who it was to betray Jesus (chapter 13), Judas left. Two and Two, well, at least it more than a dogmatic “I know because it says” when in fact, it does NOT say; but it does imply… though not that the beloved was John. Does not take a genius to make connections, though in today’s religious world, one has to wonder.

 

[simplynoone]

Doesn’t matter. We are not discussing what I believe. We are discussing what you claimed about Mary M being the disciple whom Jesus loved and that supposedly proves Jesus was married to her.

But the Disciple whom Jesus loved was a man, so it couldn’t be Mary M.

I just laid out a better case that it was Mary Magdalene. And that is ALL we will ever get out of you, “doesn’t matter. we are not discussing what I believe.” because it will be the best rebuttal you will ever have. So, my evidence against, your, uh, lack of evidence; clearly anyone with an ounce of logic could see who is searching for the truth and who is just wanting to be right for its sake alone.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Now prove this by showing us where.

In John’s Gospel, it is the Beloved Disciple who asks Jesus during the Last Supper who it is that will betray Him, hence John. Later at the Crucifixtion, Jesus tells His Mother “Woman, here is your Son”, that He indicates the Beloved Disciple is the common interpretation to the Beloved Disciple when He says "Here is your Mother."

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I just laid out a better case that it was Mary Magdalene. And that is ALL we will ever get out of you, “doesn’t matter. we are not discussing what I believe.” because it will be the best rebuttal you will ever have. So, my evidence against, your, uh, lack of evidence; clearly anyone with an ounce of logic could see who is searching for the truth and who is just wanting to be right for its sake alone.

This is always clearly mistaken for Mary Magdalene…it isn’t a woman…geez…

 

[simplynoone]

In John’s Gospel, it is the Beloved Disciple who asks Jesus during the Last Supper who it is that will betray Him, hence John. Later at the Crucifixtion, Jesus tells His Mother “Woman, here is your Son”, that He indicates the Beloved Disciple is the common interpretation to the Beloved Disciple when He says "Here is your Mother."

I would believe that it was Lazerus before John as all the clues point to it being one of 3 people. Martha, Mary, and/or Lazarus are the three that it is stated over and over again in this book as the ones being Jesus loved. Also, read through John, you will notice that this particular supper is talked about several times. This book is not necessary sequential, meaning chapter 13 follows chapter 12 in sequence of events. It is giving you, instead different angles of the same meal. Martha was busy running around. Lazarus was on the couch with Jesus and thus, that could have been the one laying on the "chest’ of Jesus… chest meaning not ACTUAL chest, but couch (as it has been referred to in other literatures; whether the Bible being one or not, I am not sure, but I will search and get back to you). Mary having just anointed him most likely was the one laying on his bosom. Just seems more logical this way.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I would believe that it was Lazerus before John as all the clues point to it being one of 3 people. Martha, Mary, and/or Lazarus are the three that it is stated over and over again in this book as the ones being Jesus loved. Also, read through John, you will notice that this particular supper is talked about several times. This book is not necessary sequential, meaning chapter 13 follows chapter 12 in sequence of events. It is giving you, instead different angles of the same meal. Martha was busy running around. Lazarus was on the couch with Jesus and thus, that could have been the one laying on the "chest’ of Jesus… chest meaning not ACTUAL chest, but couch (as it has been referred to in other literatures (whether the Bible being one or not, I am not sure, but I will search and get back to you). Mary having just anointed him most likely was the one laying on his bosom. Just seems more logical this way.

Logical? Hogwash. Lazarus was not a Disciple of Jesus, he wasn’t one of the 12 Disciples chosen. Jesus loved him, but it wasn’t him.
Lazarus being on the couch with Jesus? Now I’ve heard it all…

 

[simplynoone]

This is always clearly mistaken for Mary Magdalene…it isn’t a woman…geez…

Well, I just applied more logic to the persons arranged at the meal, and thus have most likely accounted for the “he.” Come on. At least I am putting forth an effort here to get to the truth instead of just saying I am right and you are wrong.

 

[PaulDupre]

Now prove this by showing us where.

The Gospel of John is where John refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”:

John 13:23
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.

John 19:26
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

How could Mary Magdalene be anyone’s son? John was refering to himself here.

John 20:1-2
1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

Are you claiming that Mary Magdelene was talking to herself here? Again, John is refering to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

John 21:6-8
6And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

7Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.

8And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.

These fishermen were obviously Peter, Andrew, James and John as elsewhere in the gospels.

John 21:20-24
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

You see here that John identifies himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, “the one who leaned his head on Jesus’ breast” at the last supper, and the author of this gospel.

Not Mary Magdelene, but rather John the apostle.

Just a tip to you Muslims: please read the bible and know what you are talking about before you post things you pick up on anti-Christian websites. You will look less foolish that way.

Paul

 

[simplynoone]

Logical? Hogwash. Lazarus was not a Disciple of Jesus, he wasn’t one of the 12 Disciples chosen. Jesus loved him, but it wasn’t him.
Lazarus being on the couch with Jesus? Now I’ve heard it all…

Again, this goes to show that you do not search the Scriptures as it is clear Jesus had more than 12 disciples. the 12 are just the ones that were constant companions in his travels. Do you even read what you claim to follow?

 

[simplynoone]

The Gospel of John is where John refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”:

sorry, i just saw that you did point out what you were saying. give me a few as I choose to put it into context before commenting.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Again, this goes to show that you do not search the Scriptures as it is clear Jesus had more than 12 disciples. the 12 are just the ones that were constant companions in his travels. Do you even read what you claim to follow?

Jesus chose 12 Apostles, only 12 He chose to follow Him. Do YOU read what you claim to follow? There were others of course who believed, BUT HE DIDN’T CHOOSE THEM AS ONE OF THE 12.

 

[Ginger2]

I… clearly anyone with an ounce of logic could see who is searching for the truth and who is just wanting to be right for its sake alone.

As humans we tend to gravitate toward the “I know something you don’t know” desire to one up the rest of the world.

I don’t know why but it’s exciting to think we have discovered something that has been overlooked by others.

But it is dangerous when it comes to the spiritual things of God.

Your speculation is nothing more than speculation. What benefit is it for us whether Jesus was married or not? None that I can see.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

And since there is no evidence to support the idea, it seems a waste to spend time speculating on something of zero value when that time can be better spend focusing on drawing nearer to Jesus in our own lives.

Luk 12:31 seek ye the kingdom of God;

The truth centers around the cross. It was for this reason Jesus was born.

I am truly sorry for my sarcasm. I hope you will forgive me.

Ginger

 

[simplynoone]

The Gospel of John is where John refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”:

How could Mary Magdalene be anyone’s son? John was refering to himself here.

Are you claiming that Mary Magdelene was talking to herself here? Again, John is refering to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”.

These fishermen were obviously Peter, Andrew, James and John as elsewhere in the gospels.

You see here that John identifies himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, “the one who leaned his head on Jesus’ breast” at the last supper, and the author of this gospel.

Not Mary Magdelene, but rather John the apostle.

Just a tip to you Muslims: please read the bible and know what you are talking about before you post things you pick up on anti-Christian websites. You will look less foolish that way.

Paul

Again, the most this tells me is that it was one of the three that Jesus loved who wrote this book and not john as most are assuming. Interesting. I had a sense that it was not John who wrote this book. So, most likely it was Lazarus who wrote this book. Just even the fact that the Mary, Martha, and Lazarus are the ones repeatedly mentioned as being the ones that Jesus loved in this book confirms it is one of the three and that most likely, because they are featured in this book as being the ones in whom Jesus loved just further confirms that Jesus was most likely married to Mary Magdalene since it was she who was at the tomb THAT particular morning. Would logically be the wifely duty to attend to her husband.

Thanks! You all grounding me even more in this belief that the two were married.

 

[simplynoone]

As humans we tend to gravitate toward the “I know something you don’t know” desire to one up the rest of the world.

I don’t know why but it’s exciting to think we have discovered something that has been overlooked by others.

But it is dangerous when it comes to the spiritual things of God.

Your speculation is nothing more than speculation. What benefit is it for us whether Jesus was married or not? None that I can see.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

And since there is no evidence to support the idea, it seems a waste to spend time speculating on something of zero value when that time can be better spend focusing on drawing nearer to Jesus in our own lives.

Luk 12:31 seek ye the kingdom of God;

The truth centers around the cross. It was for this reason Jesus was born.

I am truly sorry for my sarcasm. I hope you will forgive me.

Ginger

Of course. You have not offended me at all.

And you need not give me credit for it is apparent that I am trying to arrive logically to my conclusions rather than just taking what it is I am taught by other men. I feel that in these few posts I have given more evidence for my “speculations” than have those who have said it was John.

 

[NDfan]

I seem to remember someone saying that Mary Magdalene could not be at the Passover Feast. I can not find it now, but it is there. This goes to show that some of you do not bother searching the Scriptures since clearly in John 13:1, it is stated that it was a meal BEFORE the passover feast. Also, in the chapter discussing the woman anointing Jesus, immediately after was when Judas left to go make the exchange of Jesus for the silver. Immediately after the question of who it was to betray Jesus (chapter 13), Judas left. Two and Two, well, at least it more than a dogmatic “I know because it says” when in fact, it does NOT say; but it does imply… though not that the beloved was John. Does not take a genius to make connections, though in today’s religious world, one has to wonder.

Simply I’m honestly trying to follow you here but I’m getting lost on how you’re arriving at Mary M as being the beloved disciple. If we read John 21: verses 20 and 21 we see the following:

20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them, the one who had been reclining at table close to him and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”

Clearly the disciple Jesus loved is a man. It’s always been believed that John was this man. If you read this whole section it was misunderstood by many in the early church that John was going to live forever. We know he was the last Apostle to die.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey:

Hi

I think women are as respectable as men; if they would not have loved one another, human race would have disappeared on the face of the earth. Women are beautiful, for all men, as the men are also graceful for women, in my opinion.

I think, if Catholic-god-Jesus had parts having little utility for him, then it would have being equally good human flesh if he would have been a woman; I see no harm in it.

How do my Catholic friends feel about it? I think they would agree with me, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

paarsurrey, this is quite lovely indeed. I found myself reading along with this thread and from many, the attitude in which they displayed their thoughts, it came across as though to be married is a sin (even if only for Jesus, if he is to be our example… what does this then say?). Considering Mary was thought to be a virgin, jesus being married is taboo, and the priests (w/ their side exploits), oops, and let us not forget nuns, I have always viewed Catholicism to be anti family. :sad_yes:

Hi friend/sister simplynoone!

Thanks for the appreciation.

Some of my dear Catholic friends here have mentioned that Jesus was married with the Church so he needed not to marry a girl. If Jesus would have agree with Paul (in retrospect/ in supposition); then Jesus would have got married with the synagogues which he used to go, and he could not go to the Churches as he was baptized on hand of John the Baptist. What Jesus had to do with the Churches? Nothing, in my opinion

If one thinks intently, the whole idea of Jesus marrying a church is meaningless. While he was married and fathered his children; he still could serve the Church if he had liked. There are many people in the world, who are not supposed to be so perfect, yet they manage things so beautifully side by side. If Jesus was one of the perfect men ever, as my Catholic friends would have me believe, he could have done it also. If Jesus was a Catholic-god-Jesus, it would have been much easier for him to do all these things beautifully at the same time. I think Paul wanted to inculcate in the minds of the people that Jesus was a failed human being and a failed god at the same time, in my opinion.

Let Jesus marry and enjoy his life as you all do yourself, in my opinion; let Paul - not so endowed perhaps with the power of sex, wander on the path ( I think there were no roads in those days) to Damascus without a woman companion, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and would defend him against strange motives of Paul.

Regards