Was it Jesus's wedding?

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
"The women of the Order of Dan were lay Nazarites. Mary Magdalene, as a "Miriam", was a Head Sister of the Order (the equivalent of a senior bishop) and was entitled to wear black, like the Nazarites and the priests of Isis. With the early reverence for Mary Magdalene, a cult known as the "Black Madonna" emanated from Ferrieres, Gaul in AD 44."

From Bloodlines of the Holy Grail, Sir Laurence Gardner

Are you saying that the Black Madonna icons in some of the great cathedrals are not of the Virgin Mary?

I'm just saying that there exists a body of opinion that the Black Madonna's represent the Magdelene and the child of Jesus, who fled to the Herodian estates of Gaul during the Roman Persecution (at which time the Herodian dynasty had fallen foul of Nero and were in exile themselves).

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
I'm just saying that there exists a body of opinion that the Black Madonna's represent the Magdelene and the child of Jesus, who fled to the Herodian estates of Gaul during the Roman Persecution (at which time the Herodian dynasty had fallen foul of Nero and were in exile themselves).

Sorry but I don't believe that Mary Magdelene took the Child Jesus away. I would need to see a lot more proof than this.

Meanwhile I do believe that most of the Churches, Cathedrals, etc who are Blessed enough to have a Black Madonna believe that it is of the Virgin Mary. Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City is another Black Madonna famous for the miracles.

Black Madonna and brief history
www.franciscancaring.org...

The Polish Black Madonna
www.marypages.com...

More about the Black Madonnas
www.udayton.edu...







[edit on 1/26/2005 by Mahree]

Ah I haven't read all five pages of replies but I'll just say what I know about this.

Jesus and the groom are distinctly identified as being separate in the story.

Jesus never did serve the wine--his mother came to him and asked for his help, which he reluctantly gave. Even so, he told the servants what to do, and the servants then took the wine to the groom...Jesus never handled the water aka wine.

No where in the bible does it state Jesus was ever married. I think that theory has been tossed around for a long time with no real credibility.

No where in the bible does it state Jesus was ever married. I think that theory has been tossed around for a long time with no real credibility.

Nor does it specifically state that he was not, which in those times would be
far more noteworthy.

by your logic if the bible does not specifically mention it it cant of happened i
guess. If that is the case then all those mentioned with in the covers of the
bible were demonstrabily full of S***. Nowhere with in the covers of the
bible is it mentioned that any person or animal ever voided their bowels or drained their bladder. It is however mentioned on several occasions that
numerous of them engaged in sexual intercourse on several occasions, with
multiple partners. even to the extent on at least one occasion offering their virgin daughters to a mob.

Would it really matter if Jesus did marry? Would it take anything away from his message? Jesus was put on Earth to suffer for our sins. He was Human and as such he would be as suseptable to love as the rest of us wouldn't he?
He brought an important message to us, about love and forgiveness so i don't really think it matters that he married or not, i think it is important that he was ever here at all. It isn't a sin to fall in Love and Marry, in fact dosent God encourage marriage?
I think the New Testament kind of puts Jesus on a pedestal makes him seem more than Human, when i think really Jesus was all too Human. Perhaps God made him that way so he could understand us better and know that when he died on the Cross he fully understood the sins we are all guilty of.

Originally posted by Janus
Would it really matter if Jesus did marry? Would it take anything away from his message? Jesus was put on Earth to suffer for our sins. He was Human and as such he would be as suseptable to love as the rest of us wouldn't he?

Yes it does matter. It matters because the Christian church did include in its reputation, their ever evolving abstaining from acts of the flesh by their clergy, based on Paul's interpretations of Jesus' doctrine, and their own insipid reasoning. It matters because if he was married, then we need to know who his wife was and what type of husband he was. It matters because if he was we need to know if he had descendants, and why they disappeared into obscurity. It matters because Paul effaced women where Jesus did not, and where it is clear that Jewish women did have a voice.

I think we have here a split in definition. this is MHO to The Christ no it would not make a bit of difference. To Jesus the Historical person yes it makes a
big difference.

IMO he was married and had at least 1 child. His decendants were hounded into hiding by the church and might still be around today.

One of the arguments advanced in this thread is that Jesus MUST have been married because he was a rabbi. I pointed out that in Jesus' lifetime, "rabbi" was a term of respect, and not the religious office of modern Judaism. Since the rules for rabbinical conduct were not laid down until a generation after his lifetime, I argued that the fact that his students adressed him as "teacher" doesn't indicate whether or not he was married.

I stated that the modern concept of Rabbi stems from the council of Jamnia (and was lambasted here for saying so.)

While I still do not possess Neusner's book that makes this case, I have found the following reference to his argument, which is widely accepted by Jewish scholarship:


From “Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash” by H.L. Strack and Guenter Stemberger. Transl & ed. Markus Bockmuel. Minneapolis: Fortress press 1996.

p. 4 “The Beginnings of the Rabbinic Movement.

From the Modern perspective the year 70 is a decisive turning point in Jewish history. But did contemporaries also regard it as such a clear watershed separating the period of the Temple and the Pharisees from the period after 70, without the Temple and with the Rabbis? The introduction of the title ‘Rabbi’ (to be distinguished from ‘Rabbi’ as a form of address meaning ‘my lord, my master’) suggests such a consciousness of a new era.
. . . This is reflected in t.Eduy (Z.460): ‘He who has students who in turn have students of their own is called Rabbi. If his students are forgotten, he is called Rabban; if even the students of his students are already forgotten he is called [merely] by his name.’ The use of terminology which this text represents was not only an external change that began in the period after 70 CE, but indicates a new self-understanding.

As J. Neusner has variously emphasized (e.b. Phar 3:228, 282f.), this desire was not yet manifest in the days of Jamnia: a sense of discontinuity was then not yet in evidence. This only emerged at Usha, when it was clear that there would be no Temple and no restoration of earlier conditions in the forseeable future: ‘the real break in the history of the Pharisaic-rabbinic movment comes not at 70, with the distruction of the Temple, but with the reconstitution of the rabbinic movement and the patriarchal government in the north. (Phar 3:283.)

Only [then] was there an awareness that the break of 70 was irreparable.

Modern Jewish scholarship agrees that the office of the rabbinate did not exist in Jesus' lifetime. So his being addressed as "Rabbi/Rabboni" doesn't provide evidence (either positively or negatively) concerning his marital status.

Verse John 2:4 in the New King James Version says:

4 Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come."

If the wine was not his concern at the first place, how can it be His wedding?

Also, I am a Christian but it does make a difference to me if He was married or not. As He is the Son of God why does He need to get married with one of the creatures He created? He came to live as human for a purpose that I personally don't see marriage can have any role in it.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
One of the arguments advanced in this thread is that Jesus MUST have been married because he was a rabbi. I pointed out that in Jesus' lifetime, "rabbi" was a term of respect, and not the religious office of modern Judaism.

Before I provide testimony of the earliest known church father to us that either proves you wrong or the building blocks of Christianity nonsensical, in that not only that what you read in the NT is a farce, but what you read is represented by your own reference as having been written by those of a much later era who were ignorant of the rules, I will make a bargain with you. You provide to me the proof that the wise men were in total three, and that Jesus said he himself was God thereby proving the trinity, and I will concede he was not married. Deal?

Since the rules for rabbinical conduct were not laid down until a generation after his lifetime,

I have requested proof of this before several times and have yet to see even an attempt at declaring marriage requirements materialize before my eyes, statements of belief are not proof. By this logic of interpreting the NT, Peter was not married either.

Modern Jewish scholarship agrees that the office of the rabbinate did not exist in Jesus' lifetime. So his being addressed as "Rabbi/Rabboni" doesn't provide evidence (either positively or negatively) concerning his marital status.

As above then, the term was applied some time after 70ACE. Where if the simple address as pertains to the truth of the story is incorrect, there is no reason to believe the rest. Given your excuse, Mary could have said: My spouse! My spouse! since obviously rabbini is represented as a lie.

There's two thousand years of tradition in Provence in France of the settlement of Mary Magdelene, Mary Salome and others from the Holy Land in France, where Mary Magdelenes sarcophogus lies buried in a tomb dedicated to her. The people of Provence beleive the Black Madonna's to be representations of the Magdelene and child.

Previous correspondents claim to know better about the black madonna's of Southern France than the descendants of the people who actually made them, and worship in the church's of France where they reside.

I see it as a wholely unscientific viewpiont to completely dismiss thousands of years of tradition without even considering for a moment wether it has any basis. The more we look into history the more we will discover about the truth, we don't have all the answers now, but we have clues.

Eusebius had access to large amounts of credible early church history that no longer exists today, does it occur to the critics that perhaps so did the Mervongians and but for the Carolingians it would stilll exist.

Can we at least all agree that the Romans during the persecution did there darndest to destroy any and all records of the Jews?

If we can (and we should), we can begin to understand why there is a lack of evidence from this period, because it was destroyed, but that does not mean that people did not exist or events did not transpire.

In fact, as history buffs we should expect witness of the conquered to be absent, and consider witness of the conquerors to be bias. Ask yourselves the question, who would have written the definative objective proof of the existence of Jesus and his family who would not be seen to be bias? and is it realistic to expect this witness and evidence to exist.

Therefore we cannot afford to dismiss tradition as a window to the past, as discoveries may be forthcoming, it's worthwhile to remember that just because proof does not exist of the identity of millions of refugees throughout the world today, the refugees will continue to exist.

Historically speaking, there is no proof that Jesus was or wasn't married. The argument on the Bible not mentioning it can be taken both ways...some say that since it doesn't say it, then he wasn't married. Others say that since it doesn't say it, he must have been married, because it would have been so strange for a man at that time to be celibate that the writer would have to mention it, at least. Both are moot points as it doesn't prove anything either way.

But I'm of the opinion that the writers didn't mention it because there was no wife. Keep in mind, they're not writing about some man--even a good man--they are talking of the Son of God, equivalent with God, creator of the universe Himself. If the angels fell by consorting with human women--which is an altogether different subject, but no less interesting--then so much more would Christ have fallen had he married.

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
There's two thousand years of tradition in Provence in France of the settlement of Mary Magdelene, Mary Salome and others from the Holy Land in France, where Mary Magdelenes sarcophogus lies buried in a tomb dedicated to her. The people of Provence beleive the Black Madonna's to be representations of the Magdelene and child.

I have read of the connection between Mary and France, which I must say only gained global awareness because of Dan Brown's tale. We have to remember that it takes very little to start and perpetuate a myth, one need only look at how everyone is now accepting stargates as fact, and this from a concept in a movie. However, the black Madonna from what I have learned is not in fact black, but I am not 100% convinced either. Way back in the Byzantine era when the eastern orthodox church introduced iconography, the faces and hands of the paintings were covered with various layers of a varnish which over the ages darkens and gives the appearance of a black skin tone, the problem lies with the rest of the colouration and their considerable lacking in shades of dark. In my familuy there is a very old Polish rendering of a black Madonna fashioned after Our lady of Czestochowa, (in Poland's famed cathedral, the painting supposedly attributed to Luke) which led me on this search. It too is covered with layers upon layers of varnish and so I we cannot determine the true colour, but it is blacker than I would expect which leads me doubt about the severity of the colour distortion by varnish.

When Leo III declared any spiritual art form to be idolatry, he ordered everything destroyed, so what could be saved went underground into the catacombs of France, Italy and elsewhere, of course finding these automatically presume they are what they are, and so the truth is somewhere in between. (no pun intended.)

The Merovingians surfaced out of Germany in the 6th century, so any tie in to descendents of Jesus has to begin there.

they are talking of the Son of God, equivalent with God,

I believe as many others do that this concept was added later by the Pauline church.

which I must say only gained global awareness because of Dan Brown's tale. We have to remember that it takes very little to start and perpetuate a myth,

i must disagree this information has been around and available for many years.
also there can be found traces of Magdalene followers from the beginnings of church history. it has only become more appearant in recent times with
the expansion of the internet and the web. I myself have been reading and following the course of it for close to 25 years, when i still swore i wouldnt
have one of these damn things in my house.

it is not his mother, but his wife that all the cathedrals are dedicated to.

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

i must disagree this information has been around and available for many years.[./quote]And so we agree to disagree. One thing I know for sure is that when someone authors a conspiracy, it takes root. Most believe without having done their own research.

also there can be found traces of Magdalene followers from the beginnings of church history. it has only become more appearant in recent times with the expansion of the internet and the web. I myself have been reading and following the course of it for close to 25 years, when i still swore i wouldnt have one of these damn things in my house.

Of this I do not disagree, especially since PJII reinstituted faith on Mary the mother of Jesus. This however has nothing to do with a black Madonna.

[edit on 1/29/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Excellent thread.

If we can (and we should), we can begin to understand why there is a lack of evidence from this period, because it was destroyed, but that does not mean that people did not exist or events did not transpire.

I agree with this statement.

How hard do you think it would be to cover up huge swaths of history when you controlled the printing of books? Answer: Not too hard.

Now that we have the web, humanity actually has a brief moment to put the picture together. Funny that this salvationary device would be given to the people by the US defense industry.

In effect, I'm saying this: If it's on TV, it's probably a lie. If it's well-documented on the internet and NEVER on TV, it's probably true for the most part. Whatever TV ignores but internet does not IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

As for ANY books written prior to the dark ages, one must be highly skeptical. Do you really think your great-grandfather was less cunning than you are? No, these people who hid these things were smart. Real and actual purges must have happened.

Recently I was thinking about what life in a nazi camp would have been like and I was reminded of stories about how important it was to know how to HIDE things like a scrap of food or a pair of shoes you could trade with a camp-mate. This is not only a lost art, it has disappeared from the critical consciousness of many groups of people. They have never had to face inquisition or torture and so the idea of hiding something isn't a skill they ever really thought about. If the Romans kick your door in, you will quickly begin thinking of hiding places.

One thing's for sure: People believe in the gospels because Jesus only direct commandment was to love people. That strikes a reasonant chord in human beings. If Jesus was married, that's all right with me. If he was sitting next to me and told me, "You know, I was in heaven before I came to earth and I was like God." I would have no problem with it. Reincarnation works for me, if it's true.

If he was willing to die and people have been willing to take their families to the lions for what he stood for, then it must have been good.





[edit on 30-1-2005 by smallpeeps]

When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account. It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His. Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited. So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding, there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize previous posts here:
Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it is gone, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reve'als Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice, on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?
It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
Did you know that Giovanna is the feminine form of Giovanni? Iohannas is Iohannes, and Joanna is the fem. of John, all three examples the same name. Joan is not. Just Joanna.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite different than the other 3 'synoptic' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)
In the KJAV, Luke 3:27 which is Jesus' dad's lineage, ( else why put it in there? ), it reads...." Which was the son of Joanna, which was the SON of Rhesa."
At the empty tomb, who would arrive first that morning? The closest to Him would. Luke 24:10 " It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist, and the lamb of God, is Him.
Revelations 21:9, (note the coincidental #'s, and both by John, Iohannes, Giovanni...etc.). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

The last verse was pointed out to me by a dear friend, whose name I will keep anonymous unless permitted to share it.

Well, that's all folks, decide for yourself, I did but I didn't know the last 5 points when I decided what I did.