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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   


Although the link im trying to tie into it all is the baphomet.

would it not be humorous if inadvertantly Dan Brown got that part right
in TDVC ? that by applying the Atbash to baphomet you get the resultant
Sofia Goddess of Knowledge and Wisdom, Gnosis.
maybe the KT were associated with a gnostic group.


The wedding at Cana IMO was that of Jesus & Mary M. . one point about it
that hasn't been mentioned is the amount of wine. It is mentioned in several
works including HBHG but i cant remember the source right this minuite.
according to their source the amount of wine resulting from the transmutation
was in excess of 600 liters, that is in addition to what was already consumed.

based on that i think it is safe to say this was not a small local wedding as is
portrayed, or as suggested by church tradition.



[edit on 21-1-2005 by stalkingwolf]




posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
based on that i think it is safe to say this was not a small local wedding as is
portrayed, or as suggested by church tradition.


Yes it was a large amount of wine, that would lead to the conclusion it was not Jesus' wedding. He was from a poor carpenter's family, why would he have a huge lavish wedding?

[edit on 1/21/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
based on that i think it is safe to say this was not a small local wedding as is
portrayed, or as suggested by church tradition.


Yes it was a large amount of wine, that would lead to the conclusion it was not Jesus' wedding. He was from a poor carpenter's family, why would he have a huge lavish wedding?

[edit on 1/21/2005 by djohnsto77]


Why you ask? Because he was not from a poor carpenter's family, but the son of a master craftsman, or master of the craft. Joseph may well have been a high level master of the craft and the idea he was a carpenter may be incorrect.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Jesus is called Rabbi three times in the bible, and a Rabbi must be married to be one.


Actually, the office of Rabbi, as community leader, was not established until after the destruction of Temple. It was at the council of Jamnia in 90 AD that the rules for the Rabbinate were laid down. The specific requirement for marriage wasn't laid down until mishnaic times, several hundred years later. Before the council of Jamnia, Rabbi simply meant a teacher. PRIESTS were the community leaders in Jesus' day, and there was no specific requirement that they be married.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

His disciples are shown to envy how close Mary is to him, closer than they are.



Actually, that's from the "Gospel of Mary," which is a part of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, but isn't present in scripture. There is no known ancient church that accepted the "gospel of Mary" as scripture.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Jesus and his disciples were guest at the wedding. Any translation that you read makes it perfectly clear.

Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration. - New Living Translation
Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. - New King James Version
and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. - New American Standard Bible


One other point that everyone seems to have overlooked is verses 9-10


John 2:9-10
When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

And saith unto 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.


Once the ruler of the feast taste this new wine he calls the bridegroom to compliment him on his wine selection. Who is this bridegroom? If it was Jesus then why doesn't it say, "The ruler of the feast called Jesus" ? No, this bridegroom is a mystery person other than Jesus. Most likely it was a family friend since Jesus and his mother were invited.

To answer the question of why Mary asked Jesus to perform a miracle. If you'll remember how Mary was informed of Jesus' arrival, and all the surrounding events of his birth, you'll know that Mary knew exactly who Jesus was. It was no mystery to her that he was the Son of God. She was probably embarrassed for this family friend, and asked Jesus, "This is close friend (Name here), can't you help him?"


Aside from all this it honestly makes no difference if he was married or not. I doubt he was. Can you imagine the problems that this would have caused later? Who would have been in charge of Jesus' ministry? His descendants of course.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
And Dbates, we can see where the issue of a lack of Jesus' lineage comes into play elsewhere.

Eusebius, the early chronicler of the church, as well as Josephus, state that James, the half-brother of Jesus was the leader of the church in Jerusalem.

If Jesus had descendants, even offspring-in-hiding, then THEY would have been the leaders of that most critical congregation, the church in the "capitol" of Judaism.

Royal descent flows through the oldest son of the oldest son. Second sons, or uncles, come into play only when there is no progeny.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
thank you all for these responses, I can see I can't win this argument against my friend, but I have a case if I stick to the "translated english version" but I'm still losing because he doubts the translation.

does anyone know if the english word "invited" could have been mis translated from Hebrew?

circumstanstial evidence leads me to believe that the wedding in Cana was indeed Jesus's wedding, but being that I took the opposing position for argument sake, I'm determined to find as much as I can regarding translation issues to argue his points.



[edit on 1-21-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
thank you all for these responses, I can see I can't win this argument against my friend, but I have a case if I stick to the "translated english version" but I'm still losing because he doubts the translation.

does anyone know if the english word "invited" could have been mis translated from Hebrew?

circumstanstial evidence leads me to believe that the wedding in Cana was indeed Jesus's wedding, but being that I took the opposing position for argument sake, I'm determined to find as much as I can regarding translation issues to argue his points.



[edit on 1-21-2005 by worldwatcher]


Worldwatcher,

Did you read dr_strangecraft's earlier post? First of all the New Testament was never written in Hebrew; he gives an explanation of what it was written in and the translations.

Edit: I meant New Testament Duh!!

[edit on 1/21/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   


Aside from all this it honestly makes no difference if he was married or not. I doubt he was. Can you imagine the problems that this would have caused later? Who would have been in charge of Jesus' ministry? His descendants of course


this condition is seen if you read the Nag Hammadi texts. James was His Brother . . the half/step BS was added later by the church. James led the church at Jerusalem, Jude/Judas/Judas Thomas also a brother went farther east and also founded a church.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
does anyone know if the english word "invited" could have been mis translated from Hebrew?

Actually most of the New Testament was written in Greek. You can find the original writing in the Blue Letter bible (Convient Link)

In this case the original Greek word is "kaleo" which is translated as called, invited, or appointed. One other interesting thing you can do is to find other instances of this Greek word being used and find out how it was translated. Again using a tool like the Blue Letter Bible in the provided link will make this task much easier.

Here's a breakdown of the translations of "kaleo" in the Bible

call - 125,
bid - 16,
be so named - 1,
named - 1,
misc - 3


[edit on 21-1-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
okay, so it was originally Greek, then translated to Hebrew?

btw, I saw Strangecraft post, but didn't see a link, thanks for the link dbates.

I can see this being a back and forth discussion for a while. I'm seeing my friend this afternoon and I'm going to take my laptop and show him this thread.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
dbates, djohnsto, what do you make of this? I'm sure this is going come up.

A HEBREW OR GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I suppose that it could have been translated into Hebrew, but the King James New Testament was translated from Greek. The Jews were a conquered nation at the time and they used the current language of learning to write their stories, since they wanted them to be read abroad.

Here's one interesting discussion of the reasons that Greek was used. I think it diverted back to when Alexander the Great conquered that area.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
btw, I found this great link of all the various translations from the Greek version.

www.greeknewtestament.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

His disciples are shown to envy how close Mary is to him, closer than they are.



Actually, that's from the "Gospel of Mary," which is a part of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, but isn't present in scripture. There is no known ancient church that accepted the "gospel of Mary" as scripture.


Precisely because early church leaders succumbed to chauvinism and egotism in seeking to control Christendom. They felt threatened by Mary Magdalene's influence on early Christians since she was considered a respected spiritual teacher in her own right (as is indicated by her likely authorship of the Fourth Gospel) and because she was married to Issa/Jesus.


"Scripture" was largely determined by those in power in the early church, many of which were corrupt and self-serving. Like Emperor Justinian for example, who had all passages pertaining to a belief in reincarnation omitted from the Bible in 533 AD. Henceforth, anyone caught teaching reincarnation would be prosecuted by the government. Consequently, most Christians today do not believe in the doctrine of reincarnation; which is in sharp contrast to many if not most early Christians who did believe in it prior to 533 AD.

This is the reason why ALL ancient writings need to be examined and considered, not just the twisted and distorted "official version of scripture" of any church.



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
"Scripture" was largely determined by those in power in the early church, many of which were corrupt and self-serving. Like Emperor Justinian for example, who had all passages pertaining to a belief in reincarnation omitted from the Bible in 533 AD.


How then do you account for the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written BC? They were found long after the King James version of the Bible was written yet back up the text very well. Did Emperor Justinian use the Vatican's time machine to go back in time and change the text?

I know the Dead Sea Scrolls contained only Old Testament Scriptures, but nothing contained in them validates the Reincarnation theory.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
"Scripture" was largely determined by those in power in the early church, many of which were corrupt and self-serving. Like Emperor Justinian for example, who had all passages pertaining to a belief in reincarnation omitted from the Bible in 533 AD.


How then do you account for the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written BC? They were found long after the King James version of the Bible was written yet back up the text very well. Did Emperor Justinian use the Vatican's time machine to go back in time and change the text?

I know the Dead Sea Scrolls contained only Old Testament Scriptures, but nothing contained in them validates the Reincarnation theory.

[edit on 21-1-2005 by dbates]


All passages on reincarnation were ordered by Emperor Justinian to be omitted, not just those in the Old Testament. This resulted in omitting relevant passages/chapters in the New Testament. There are still hints of reincarnation that have remained but any open preaching of reincarnation was prosecuted by the government in the Sixth Century.

I quote my first reference:

>

Taken from: How the Early Church Suppressed Paganism and Astrology

I quote my second reference:



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

All passages on reincarnation were ordered by Emperor Justinian to be omitted, not just those in the Old Testament. . . .

Our orthodox versions of the Old and New Testaments date no further back than the 6th Century, . . .



posted on Jan, 21 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I have provided plenty of quotes and plenty of links attesting to Emperor Justinian in the Sixth Century having ordered all references to the doctrine of reincarnation to be omitted from the Bible.

Are there any credible links and cogent arguments to the contrary in our foreseeable future?

I have yet to see any.

By the way, it is also mentioned in Life Between Life by Joel L.Whitton, M.D., Ph.D. & Joe Fisher.

I quote from pages 62-63:

>



[edit on 21-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join