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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   


. This however has nothing to do with a black Madonna.

I disagree, i find it interesting that at almost every center of the Magdaline
cult there is also a Black Madonna or the legend of one being there. many with
the circle of stars around the head symbol of Sofia and Venus converted by
the RCC to the Halo around the Virgins head. The Black clothing attributed to
as i recall the Nazorite women leaders. then the RCC edict that the virgin only
be depicted in Blue and white.




posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



. This however has nothing to do with a black Madonna.

I disagree, i find it interesting that at almost every center of the Magdaline
cult there is also a Black Madonna or the legend of one being there. many with
the circle of stars around the head symbol of Sofia and Venus converted by
the RCC to the Halo around the Virgins head. The Black clothing attributed to
as i recall the Nazorite women leaders. then the RCC edict that the virgin only
be depicted in Blue and white.
We believe what we want to believe. I gave you the account of the Black Madonna and why it is black, as well as the German start to the French connection. As far as I am concerned, neither Brown nor his contemporaries have even managed to adequately describe their case of a lineage.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! If you have the gall to call Gods word mythical, at least quote it correctly. The person who was incarcerated, was WAY off base. Jesus was God in Human form. Thus He did not marry any one person. The bride he is inferring about is the Church( believers in His word) He uses parables and symbols that people could relate to. In this instant it was a wedding. Jesus' spent time with man to show his love for them. He died so we could be with him eternally. The BELIEVERS are the BRIDE OF CHRIST. Miracles were one way he used to show his divinity. water into wine.amongst the least of them. Resurerection! Now thats a miracle. Get it? Got it? good!



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by gospeltruth
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! If you have the gall to call Gods word mythical, at least quote it correctly. The person who was incarcerated, was WAY off base. Jesus was God in Human form. Thus He did not marry any one person. The bride he is inferring about is the Church( believers in His word) He uses parables and symbols that people could relate to. In this instant it was a wedding. Jesus' spent time with man to show his love for them. He died so we could be with him eternally. The BELIEVERS are the BRIDE OF CHRIST. Miracles were one way he used to show his divinity. water into wine.amongst the least of them. Resurerection! Now thats a miracle. Get it? Got it? good!



just because you believe it does not make it true. No matter how many times
you shout it from the roof tops.



The Black clothing attributed to as I recall Nazorite women leaders.


guess you missed this part?

[edit on 4-2-2005 by stalkingwolf]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Any one who says the bible is unclear is someone who hasnt read it



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
If you're God, (son of God), why would you waste your time and powers on such a trivial thing if it was just a stranger's or even friend's wedding, he didn't do this for his disciples weddings, if they had any, he did this at this particular wedding because it was his own wedding.



have you thought that He did it because He was asked by His mother? remember "honor your father and mother". that why She said: "do what He say"



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gospeltruth
Any one who says the bible is unclear is someone who hasnt read it


I have read it three times, and Revelations specifically, is very unclear to me. The one verse I posted from it that made sense to me, if taken at face value, according to you means something completely different. How do you figure out all these verses to mean other than what they literally mean? I think you are a little too sure of yourself. If someone wants to say that the bible has myths in it, who are you to berate them? That is gall in my view.
I like my conclusions, and my interpretation of the verses quoted relies on the actual words written, not some hidden esoteric meaning that only a psychic could ascertain from them.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   


Any one who says the bible is unclear is someone who hasnt read it

they probably have a better understanding of it and have read it more
that those sheep who just follow unquestioningly the " infallable word"



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I personally dont think Jesus was married, because that wasnot his purpose on Earth. Why get married and doomed your wife and children to persucution has the family of the "Christ" ?? Why wouldnt the Gospels speak of Jesus and his lovelly wife and his possible children?

Personally i see no problem with Jesus beeing married, once the Christian religion supports marriage, I just dont think he was.

Things like the DaVinci code, are theories, they have no proof or foundation, besides the beliefs of people that lived 500 and 1000 years later and more... I think we should keep in mind that the "last Supper" painting of Leonardo Davinci is JUST THAT, a painting... not a Paparazzi shot taken at the moment of the Last Supper.

There are dangers to this kind of theory tho. It is another basis to the infamous and very dangerous "serpent seed Line" teaching. This states that the white peopl are the only TRUE Children of Israel, because "Jesus's Wife" went to France and England and all their white descendents are THE TRUE ISRAELITES. On the other side of the coin are all of thos who are not white, and therefore all those who are not "descendentes of Jesus and Mary Madgdalene" are carriers of the evil serpent seed .... This is the same kind of doctrine behind Hitler and many more other racist groups.

It may be desguized as something nice, but it isnt...



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
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 my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. 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, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. 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?

8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were 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 being quoted, and the lamb of God he is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.

Here is a more in depth article on the theory, the link is to part 1 of 3. As for the previous post re: white Jesus, I personally believe Mary was likely black, and would not be shocked to learn Jesus was as well. He certainly was more likely black than white, imho.
www.nexusmagazine.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Black Madonna

SomewhereinBetween,

You are mostly correct on this, a very good case. To further your case, the Churches did not have electricity, so the people had candles, they would go up to the Icons to kiss them and over hundreds of years the soot would collect on the face, this way when you take of the silver or gold coverings, they are clean, except the face and hands. Ta da! A black Madonna. Now for my next trick…we will pretend to land on the moon. Stand back...

It is not some Magdalene cult or something else.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
So, Balaam's Donkey, you are saying that the claim that all of the gothic cathedrals in europe are not dedicated to the black madonna then. I don't know one way or the other, but I do know that many people believe that this is the case. If your soot theory of the origins of the black madonna are right, then that puts a damper on the dedication claims. I, for one, would love to find out more about the spontaneous eruption of the gothic style, what spurred it, who funded the construction, who built them, and why they have so many arcane symbols, and sacred geometrical values incorporated into them. The only one I have read about in any depth is Chartres, and it is an amazing edifice containing interesting dimensions that correlate well to various planetary statistics, ie. speed of rotation on our axis.
Also, I read that the stained glass windows in the original gothic cathedrals has never been duplicated, and that the red glass in particular has been a long sought after goal. Anyone know about that? Or why the sudden frenzy and then ebb of construction of these wonders?



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   


Was it Jesus's wedding?

He claims that in biblical times, it was jewish tradition that only members of the wedding party that were related to either the bride or the groom or the bride and the groom themselves could serve/share wine/water.

His claim continues that at the Jewish wedding where Jesus turns water into wine and serves the wedding guests that it was it just wasn't any wedding but the wedding of Jesus himself.

That by Jesus serving the wine, it proves that Jesus was probably the groom.



Was it Jesus wedding?
1) He served wine
2) Serving wine proves he the bridegroom

According to Holy Scripture:

John 2:1-10 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 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.

It does not say Jesus served the wine.
It does say Jesus caused the miracle of the water to wine
It says that governor did not know who brought the wine, inferring he was not talking to Jesus, as it says the servants knew.
It says Jesus was called to the wedding, if it was his wedding he would have called.
His mother had to tell the servants to listen to Him, if it was His wedding they would have know this.
Jesus said take the water turned into wine to the governor. Jesus is never called the bridegroom in this passage, and the word bridegroom is not capitalized. Nor does the bridegroom speak, and if it was Jesus, he would have said something wise at this moment.
Also it was the governors job to serve and take care of the guests, not the bridegroom.

Nothing is this passage says he is the bridegroom.
St. Mary Magdalene is not mentioned.

According to Holy Fathers:

ST JEROME:
In describing our Lord's visit to the marriage at Cana in Galilee, "He who went but once to a marriage has taught us that a woman should marry but once; and this fact might tell against virginity if we failed to give marriage its due place--after virginity that is, and chaste widowhood. But, as it is only heretics who condemn marriage and tread under foot the ordinance of God, we listen with gladness to every word said by our Lord in praise of marriage. For the Church does not condemn marriage

ST. CHRYSOSTOM:
That He came then "to Cana," the Evangelist has said, but he has not added the cause why He came. Into Galilee He had come because of the envy of the Jews; but wherefore to Cana? At first He came, being invited to a marriage

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME
This is Jesus of Nazareth, who was invited to the marriage-feast in Cana, and turned the water into wine,

According to Holy Tradition:
The Church teaches the Jesus perform his first miracle at Cana, that he was invited, to the wedding as a guest. I have seen but cannot remember where, it is said that the man who was married saw the miracle and followed Christ as a disciple, one of the seventy.
The Church also teaches the Christ’s presence is a blessing of marriage in the New Testament.

Extra:
Every document I have seen reports St. Mary Magdalene was a virgin, but the Church of Rome confused her with the prostitute, at Christ feet. She was from a wealthy family, as she had an audience with Caesar after the Crucifixion, because Pilate should not have killed him as he found him innocent.

John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

So, I cannot see why anyone should think it was his wedding.

edit: remove accidental smiley face.


[edit on 9-4-2005 by Balaams donkey]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   


To further your case, the Churches did not have electricity, so the people had candles, they would go up to the Icons to kiss them and over hundreds of years the soot would collect on the face, this way when you take of the silver or gold coverings, they are clean, except the face and hands.


Nice try, but many of them are made from dark or black wood or stone. Ebony and Jet as I recall. they did not discolor but were made that way intentionally.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Every document I have seen reports St. Mary Magdalene was a virgin, but the Church of Rome confused her with the prostitute, at Christ feet. She was from a wealthy family, as she had an audience with Caesar after the Crucifixion, because Pilate should not have killed him as he found him innocent.

John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

So, I cannot see why anyone should think it was his wedding.

edit: remove accidental smiley face.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Balaams donkey]

I don't follow. Are you saying that if he was married to Mary, that would be considered a fault? I don't see the connection between John 18:38 and your conclusion directly following.
You did rationalize away the points regarding the wedding, and that is fine, I am glad we all do not see things the same way.
As for the other points that I made that suggest he was married, they are not disproven even if the wedding at Cana is not theirs. The link I posted above also gives more evidence of their betrothal. I see lots of very suggestive NT verses that he was married, whether at Cana or at some other time.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Wolf


Nice try, but many of them are made from dark or black wood or stone. Ebony and Jet as I recall. they did not discolor but were made that way intentionally.


From Byzantine Icons : Iconography Techniques

Wood:

When choosing the wood, most iconographers will consider bass, poplar or birch due to the density, grain, and drying properties. Once cut to the proper dimensions, the wood must be sealed with a wood sealing agent, and, once dry, a linen cloth is applied over the wood. This process is done to ensure the painted surface is prevented from cracking during the wood drying process. Over the linen cloth, an application of 10 or more coats of gesso is painted on. Gesso is generally made from marble dust, chalk, and rabbit skin glue.

Gesso is white, I have gone to school to learn iconography techniques. Most Icons I have see are not black except some very old ones. We also learn techniques for cleaning the soot off of the icons. Some cannot be saved. The Church keeps these darkened icons for there history.

I am not saying that somewhere, someone could not create a black icon. Also most people are ignorant of the fact the Church has many black saints, many of them women, they are often mistaken for Mary the Mother of God. St. Mary of Egypt, St. Moses the Black, St. Anthony, and more, just to name a few.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I may be wrong but I did not find any reference to Mother Mary being black, the Black Madonna that has been repetitively referred to is Mary Magdalene, who could very well have been black. I have read that Sarah, Abraham's wife was black. Also, Moses was of Royal Egyptian lineage, or at the least half Egyptian, and therefore likely quite dark. The link I posted above gives the whole story of what many believe to be a suppressed truth of history, that is namely, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children, and that this line of descendents has had to stay hidden since they were being methodically eradicated, perceived as a legitimate threat to the church's supremacy. I feel that this theory has merit. If you do not, that is great, I have no need to convince you. We are all deserving of the respect that allows us to hold our differing beliefs, unharrassed.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
the wedding at cana is not jesus's wedding he is a guest. now one possibilities that has not been adressed is could this possibly been the wedding of one of jesus's brothers? personaly i think that mary was a guest as well but that is not so clear it may have been any realitive or even a family friend. it has been my understanding is that to run out of wine was a major embaresment (or possibly a bad omen?). jesus clearly said that it was NOT his CONCERN. if it had been his wedding it most definately would have been his concern.

was jesus married? i realy have not formed a concreat opinion one way or the other. but what does it realy matter? excepting of course to those of the catholic faith. if indeed he was married then why wouldn't it be stated in the bible? easy if he had a wife or even children they are NOT IMPORTANT to his message. they would not be anything special to the church. under jewish tradition widows could be married by a realitive and the first child would be considered the heir of the original husband if they had had no children. just look at the story of ruth. this being said if a wife was mentioned her first child would be the heir of jesus, this could cause a "inherited" type of possition in the church. but remember only jesus was without sin, the same could be said to follow his line, even though that would not be true. so perhapse IF he was in fact married this would be why a wife would not be mentioned.

that actualy brings up a rather interesting question on it's own. since jesus did not stay dead would a wife be a widow?

as for the catholics i would recomend you read 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 where to put it into my own words it states that the choice to be married or not is our own choice but if you can't controll yourself it is better to be married than to burn with lust. i do not mean any disrespect to you but perhaps if priests were alowed to get married then there wouldn't be the problem of the many sexual offences that we hear about so often today. or at least not so many as preists are just human like the rest of us.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I enjoyed reading your post Drogo, and found it to be a reasoned and well written opinion. I do not know if the wedding was indeed Jesus', but as I said, the numerous other biblical hints have made me lean towards the belief that they were married nonetheless. My feeling on the question of widowhood is that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and was nursed back to health. The theory, (not my own), that I feel makes the most sense is that the sop that was held up to him, [one of two mentioned), just before he lost consciousness was some sort of narcotic. This put him into an almost deathlike stupor that was convincing enough for the roman soldier to agree that he was in fact dead. The empty tomb now has a much more believable cause, and the subsequent conversations with the disciples also becomes more plausible. Of course, any Christian is bound to vehemently disagree, as this scenario would negate the whole 'blood for our sins' story. I, of course, was not there so I do not know what happened for certain, but as anyone else does, I have come to my own conclusions after studying the literature. I wouldn't even say that I am certain he is not a creation of Josephus, and thus, a completely fictional figure. There is much evidence to suggest this. The obvious parallels with earlier myths being one suggestive point. I believe he did exist, was a legitimate contender for the throne of Israel, was a learned Nazorean Jewish Rabbi, a husband, and father. I also treasure his message, which is baxed in love. In the event that he did not exist in reality, the message remains, and in my view, is unchanged. The Joanna who is with Mary Magdalene the morning she arrives at the tomb is an interesting figure in my mind, too. I wonder if she might have penned John, and been the 'most beloved' disciple who also wrote Revelations. The many differences between the other three gospels and John are one thing that stands out. Others are things such as the reference to a forebear of Joseph named Joanna, who is called 'son'. This is in the KJAV bible, and is not in three others I checked, which have a different name in its place. Giovanni, Iohannes, John, all three names have a parallel feminine name Giovanna, Iohannas, Joanna. Since it seems pretty clear to me that the significant women in the NT were editted down to smaller roles, it would not surprise me to find out that apostle John was actually apostle Joanna. Just my view, which I don't expect or desire anyone else to support. I have no need for that.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
BlackGuardXIII,

I am unware of any text, New Testament, suggesting that Jesus was married to anyone, let alone St. Mary Magdelne. Please list the verses that are used to support the idea. If you know which ones they maybe.
Personaly I belive that a cult of Magdelne, is tring to justify themselves to power, over us non children, by saying they are the children of her and Christ. I think it is dumb.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join