It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was it Jesus's wedding?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
There's several DVDs out now about the DaVinci Code. On at least one of them, there are authors stated that in Jewish tradition, the wine part mentioned in the Bible would be the groom's job. So, the Wedding was Jesus'. If I can find the author or a link, I will post later.




posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The gospel of John is the only account of Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding feast. There are pericopes where Jesus compares heaven to a wedding banquet, but John 2 is the only narrative with a wedding for the setting.

The gospel of John does not occur as a Hebrew text. The earliest copies of it are all in Greek. In much of that gospel, Jesus appears to be speaking Koine (Greek) rather than Hebrew or Aramaic.

The Greek reads more like this in verses 1 and 2: "and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. " (per the ASB.) The Byzantine text says literally "eklaythe de kai ho yaysous kai hoi mathetai eis ton gamon." Jesus and the disciples are both in the nominative, meaning that they were ALL invited.

Also, notice that Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. Presumeably, if he was either the master of the feast, or the bridegroom, then the servants wouldn't need any instructions on whom to obey.

The point of turning the water into wine is not merely to insure that everyone gets a drink. The point is that Jesus used stone jars that were intended for the ritual purifications before prayer. In other words, this is not like Jesus coming to your house and making wine in your bathtub. It is more along the lines of Jesus going to church and filling the baptismal pool with wine. The point is, "Jesus fills our rituals and traditions with rejoicing; he gives us wine where we thought there could only be water.

Everyone is free to question the texts as we have them. Doing so, of course, calls into question their value as sources of info on Mary Magdalene as well.


[edit on 20-1-2005 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
This theory is covered in "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and a third author I do not recall. I read it a long time ago so I don't recall all of the details.

The Davinci Code borrows liberally from this work of non-fiction and weaves it into the mythology of the storyline.

There is lots of research supporting the author's claims the the true holy grail is actually the bloodline of the historical Jesus who by the way was a direct descendant of King David and thus had a real right to proclaim himself "King of the Jews". For this reason he was a political threat to the rulers of the day.

Lots more information in that bool. A very good read in my opinion. I would venture a guess that WorldWatcher's friend read this book from the prison library. Millions of copies were sold and caused quite a controversy. He certainly is not the first one to claim this theory.


.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
There's several DVDs out now about the DaVinci Code. On at least one of them, there are authors stated that in Jewish tradition, the wine part mentioned in the Bible would be the groom's job. So, the Wedding was Jesus'. If I can find the author or a link, I will post later.


that is exactly what I am looking for, corroboration for his theory about the wedding rituals. hope you find it, i'll be waiting and searching too.


as for my friend, yep he did alot of reading and now the poor guy can't shut up, we didn't discuss the books he read, but i'll mention them to him and see if it was one of the ones he read, thanks for the info.

[edit on 1-20-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I recall having a tough time convincing two friends that 'The Blair Witch Project' was fictional. They put up a good defense, citing the wanted posters on the internet etc.
Only by getting them to concentrate on the idea that whenever they were watching the actors filming each other, someone had to be filming the actors. Just telling them I read an interview with the makers didn't cut it.
They were quite disappointed.
The Celestine Prophecy is a novel. Honest.
I have seen a huge amount of commentary on it that seems to doubt that.
I have also watched people discuss the events in it as though it was accepted, proven, historical fact.

I used to believe the Don Juan books by Castenada were non-fiction, but learned long ago they were well-researched novels.

The Da Vinci Code is the latest book to achieve this dubious honour of being cited as a source of evidence by people when discussing real events related to its fictional content. It is not a good source to cite. Its fiction.
Just like the celestine prophecy, and Don Juan, and Blair Witch......
I swear.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cherish
If this was his own wedding...i wonder if he had children and if there are descendents living today?


There have been many claims made by people that tehy are from Jesus and his blood line ... I dunno if they are true but here is a link to read up on it if you would like to ...

www.arlev.clara.net...

I am not too sure how much this will help but I found it to be an interesting site none the less.

*Z*



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The scriptures make it clear that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding.


Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The scriptures make it clear that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding.


Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.


I haev to agree here. The bible has never been known to be very clear. Most of it is one big circle talk ... And very hard to understadn let alone interpret.


*Z*



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.


That a contradiction if I've ever read one.

The Bible is not clear on anything, that's a given. But if that's the case, how can you state as fact whose wedding it was at all?



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.

HA! Oh really!? You say that with such knowing authority! You can not prove it...it is "your" opinion, therefore it should not be stated with such an absolute statement! Unless of course you can prove it.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The scriptures make it clear that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding.


Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.


The Bible is clear the problem is people want to keep trying to read things into it that aren't there!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I personally don't think the bible is clear on anything. It has been added to, taken away from and mistranslated so much it very unclear!



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.


If the Bible is NOT clear on any thing, then it is just as useless in support of your beliefs as it is in favor of anyone elses. If the Bible isn't clear, then we don't need to worry about Jesus at all.

It kills me the way you people are. It's not like my post was the final word or anything, but you people just acted like it wasn't even there.

Worldwatcher's friend studied hebrew instead of Greek, but that doesn't matter if you like what he said, right?

If it was Jesus' own wedding, then why did Mary have to tell the servants to follow his instructions? But none of you have time to address those bits of info, because they get in the way of your current interests.

It's ironic that so many of you think the Bible is unreliable when it says something you disagree with, but cite it to support your own theories; without bothering to explain your criterion for deciding which verses you choose to believe in and which to ignore.


And then you chant "deny ignorance" as your mantra.






posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft


And then you chant "deny ignorance" as your mantra.




Yes...and that includes you too....open your mind...the bible is not the end all of knowledge. It was written by man changed by man, added to by man, and mistranslated by man......and that is fact, not opinion



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Jesus is called Rabbi three times in the bible, and a Rabbi must be married to be one. There is a place where the people wonder how he could be a Rabbi, since they did not see him train in the local temples. If they questioned that, would they not question how he could be an unmarried Rabbi? Yet not one time is it raised. It says nowhere in the bible that he was not married, unless you count that last post in Revelations as saying he was not.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
It wouldn't really matter to me as a Protestant Christian if he was married or not, I just don't think he was, and I'm sure the wedding described in John was not his. If Jesus was married it would rock the Roman Catholic Church though, since they don't allow their priests to marry and that would make no sense if Jesus was married himself IMHO.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
It was his wedding. The clues:

His mother when wine was needed goes to Jesus to provide same and not the host. This is crucial in context with Mary's later awe at her son, but nevertheless, she approached her son where both were at a wedding because there was no wine.

The persons being married were not named, neither party, their affiliation, nothing. Unlike the portrayal of others in John. This suggests the information was edited.

The give away: After jesus had the pots of water changed to wine, here is what happened;

The ruler of the wedding or governor, the father-in-law or bestman, not knowing how this wine came to be, called the bridegroom and said to him:


every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.


Now it is clear here. Mary his mother had an absolute interest in the guests. She did not call on the host when the beverage ran dry, she called on Jesus. This is rude unless you happen to be involved in the wedding. And where the other scriptures always credit him without being obscure with the thanks of those for whom he performed miracles, this one did not. Instead, it has the bridegroom being thanked, and being accused of keeping the best for last.

Magdalena was, the disciple he loved best.

[edit on 1/20/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The scriptures make it clear that Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding.


Since when is the Bible clear on anything?

It was his wedding, period. Give it up.


The Bible is clear the problem is people want to keep trying to read things into it that aren't there!


I agree with you that it is clear, but I think we disagree on what is clear.
This is what is clear to me:

Jesus preached that it is good for a man to get married. Nowhere does it say, except for himself.
It does not say anywhere that he never married.
His disciples are shown to envy how close Mary is to him, closer than they are.
Three times he is called Rabbi. It is mandatory that to become a Rabbi, one must be married. If single, Jesus would have been questioned how he could be a Rabbi and be single. Yet no one ever mentions it, or questions him on it.
The wedding at Cana has a number of details that are only explained by the conclusion that it was Jesus wedding.
Mary Magdalene was subject to a smear campaign for centuries, the reason for it not ever said.
The Gothic Cathedrals are all dedicated to Mary Magdalene, the black madonna, so she must be very important.




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
My wife and I discussed this after reading The Da Vinci Code. I find it to be somewhat irrelevant. My point is that the Bible makes no confirmation that he was married nor single. It's just not addressed. So what? Does that somehow undermine the validaty of what is said? It's like saying that someones comment that the sky is blue is incorrect because they neglected to mention there were white clouds in it, as well. I actually find the notion of him being married even more impacting of my faith in him as savior. I can identify with the human side of him even more, being a husband myself. Gives even more significance to his sacrifice on the cross. As far as whether or not the feast at Canaan was his wedding, who cares? It affects the scripture not one wit. The miracle was still the same miracle regardless of whose wedding it was.


And setting aside all religious feelings, that Da Vinci Code book was lame.

Go watch "Dogma", it's much more entertaining.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Dogma was a great movie, my favriot jay and silent bob movie.....
Anyway give up the hunt, people have been searching for the Royal Bloodline for centuries, what do u think the templars existed for? Yes they were originaly a christian army, but then they cut their links to the catholic church. My theory is that they were working for the bloodline. Although the link im trying to tie into it all is the baphomet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join