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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Why not read the thread, it is most useful. I have reposted my previous post since you had trouble finding it. I think its smart, not dumb........tuum ascendo.[


quote]Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
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 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The DaVinci Code is the source of the confusion. You need to read what the Bible says to remove the confusion.

The Bible tells us that Jesus and the disciples were "called" to the wedding. Somone wouldn't need an invite to their own wedding.

It doesn't say Jesus mother was in charge of the wine. She found out somehow that there was no wine and went to Jesus and said, "THEY have no wine"



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
For the nth time I never have, and never intend to read that Godforsaken piece of fantasy called the Davinci code.
In fact, I have read the New International, Good News, and KJAV Bibles.
So, what say ye now?



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   


that Godforsaken piece of fantasy called the Davinci code

could also be expressed as,


that Godforsaken piece of fantasy called the bible



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Black!
I never said you are dumb, I do not think this at all my friend, I fact you seem smart, I said I think the idea of Jesus being married is dumb. Now, I guess your right, I could be hurting someone’s feelings and I don't mean to do that, so I am sorry. I did read your posts, maybe I missed something, there are seven pages here.

You said Jesus said marriage is good and divorce bad, yes, he never said it was wrong to be single? Many of the Great prophets were single, St. John the Baptist, St John the evangels, Elijah, Ezekiel, St. Paul were all monastic in life. Paul says it is the better way.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

So how could Paul be greater than the Lord?
1 Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
Virginity is praised, if the Lord Himself is married, then way is virginity praised?

Plus, Jesus being married would be a big deal but it is not meantioned, seems strange? He has dinner with a tax collector, that is meantioned, but his marriage is not? Ockham's Razor?

“For the nth time I never have, and never intend to read that Godforsaken piece of fantasy called the Davinci code.”
You the Man!


St. Mary Magdalene is not black, her arm is uncorrupted and body temperature, on Mt. Athos. She was a white girl from Galilee.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I inferred that since I find the marriage idea probable, and you called it stupid, then that meant I must be stupid to feel it is the most obvious conclusion when interpreting the various points I make in that list. Ockam's razor is a great tool, that is usually correct, but I don't ever make the assumption that it always points to the right answer.
What was a white girl doing so far from home? re: Mary Magdalene in Gallilee. How are you able to claim with such certainty she was white?
I also wondered if you went to the link I posted and read through all three parts? It is quite interesting.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
No. Jesus suggested I be single as He was. I didn't listen.

He was chaste, just as the 144,000 of Revelation will be.

Gee, why do people look for something other than what is cearly there; in black white and red?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Thomas


No. Jesus suggested I be single as He was. I didn't listen. He was chaste, just as the 144,000 of Revelation will be. Gee, why do people look for something other than what is cearly there; in black white and red?


Bam! Nice job.

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Not everyone is to be eunuch or a monastic, marriage is chastity also. Otherwise their would not be anybody on earth.


Black,

How can I claim that Mary Magdalene is white? I seen her arm. It is of a "light skinned person" , white could be too fine a term, middle eastern might be better. That is far better than your guess of, she is black.

Her life:

www.roca.org...

Sorry I spoke too simply, she is of Magdala, which is near Galilee, which is why she is call Mary Magdalene of her town,
Luke 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Just as Jesus was call a Nazarene , as he was of Nazareth
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Well black, it could be that the way the Bible is written is just the way things did happen, not everything is a half truth or lie.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Thomas


No. Jesus suggested I be single as He was. I didn't listen. He was chaste, just as the 144,000 of Revelation will be. Gee, why do people look for something other than what is cearly there; in black white and red?


Bam! Nice job.

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Not everyone is to be eunuch or a monastic, marriage is chastity also. Otherwise their would not be anybody on earth.


Black,

How can I claim that Mary Magdalene is white? I seen her arm. It is of a "light skinned person" , white could be too fine a term, middle eastern might be better. That is far better than your guess of, she is black.

Her life:

www.roca.org...

Sorry I spoke too simply, she is of Magdala, which is near Galilee, which is why she is call Mary Magdalene of her town,
Luke 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Just as Jesus was call a Nazarene , as he was of Nazareth
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Well black, it could be that the way the Bible is written is just the way things did happen, not everything is a half truth or lie.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
It seems to me that the best evidence that Jesus was married lies in the silence of the canonical Gospels on the matter. If he were unmarried, that would be sufficently extraordinary in the Jewish culture of the time to demand a mention and some sort of explination.

The possibility that Jesus was a member of the Essene community, which did not marry, is attractive as well. This, actually, would explain why he is called "the Nazarene." It isn't because that's where he grew up -- there is considerable debate about Nazareth even existing at the time. But "Nazarene" was a term for the Essene communities.

The problem with this lies in the recent (well, relatively) discovered Gnostic gospels, which were written earlier than much of the Canonical New Testement. These seem pretty clear that Jesus and Mary M. had a special relationship. Indeed, they outright claim that the Apostles were jtealous of her special relationship with Jesus.

I also agree that the wedding at which the water-to-wine incident occurs was likely his. It just doesn't make sense for Mary-the-Mom (or, if you prefer, Theotokalis, "the god-bearer") to get so worked up over the wine otherwise.

As for the argument that Jesus was "invited", I would argue that you should look carefully at the original text. I believe that the in the original language, it says "called" -- as distinct from "invited." And you are, indeed, in many traditions "called" to your own wedding, often with a group of your friends and closest associates who keep you company as you wait to be told that everyone is ready for you.

Now, did they have a child? Did they run away to France? Did their decendents found the Priory de Sion?

I'm sorry, but I cannot tell you that.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Groupies:

Here are some random "points to ponder" about the probably-married state of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (which English speaking people call "Jeezuz")----and we'll leave The da Vinci Code out of the discussion, if you don't mind !

l. The Mishnah (or Jewish Oral Law), though codified in the 5th century AD hearkens back to traditions much earlier (as far back as the time of the Maccabees, c. 165BC) and contains regulations current in the time of "Jeezuz": it states:

"No man may be called Rabbi ("my great one" or "=teacher") unless he is at least 30 years old...and married".

Interesting that Luke's gospel mentions that "Iesous was about thirty years old when he began to teach.." This may suggest the mishnaic law was in the back of the writer's mind (altough he is silent about the marriage aspect-status or conddition of Iesous)

2. Mark's gospel (and John's) both use the term "Rabbi" and "Rabbouni" to refer to the teacher.

3. Magadellah is an Aramaism meaning "hairdresser": So Miryam haMegadellah would mean, "Miryam the Hairdresser".

One wonders if this is why she is confused with an un named prostitute in the gospels?

4. The title "Miryam of Magdala" is also a possibility for the derivation of "Magdalene" to separate her from the other Miryams (e.g. Miryam of Galilee, the mother of "Iesous") which surrounded a Daviddic King

NOTE: ("Miryam" is originally an Egyptian word meaning "princess"); that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean was surrounded by so many "Miryams" falls in line with the idea of his having Daviddic (i.e. royal) blood, even though the Davidds were in Exile at the time (Herod's family were Arab-Idumaean converts to Judaism back in 104 BC and married into the Levitical Hashmonean dynasty who had usurped the Davidds after the exile in Babylon nearly wiped out the royal line: "ye shall become unto me, saith YHWH, a Kingdom OF Priests, a Holy Nation..." which gave the Hashmonean priests the idea that they could call themselves kings as well.

5. In John's Gospel (the same gospel which gave us the story of the water-wine ceremony at the so-called Wedding at Cana) has Miryam ha-Megadellah speak the words in the tomb to a man she takes to be a gardner: "Sir, they have moved the CORPSE OF MY HUSBAND (Greek: kuriou mou) and I do not know where they have laid him out".

The King James version of 1611 in the NT has the Greek words translated in John chapter 20 as "the body of my lord" in the same way as Juliet speaks of Romeo as "saw you my lord?" meaning "husband" in the Shakespeare play of around the same time where Lord and Husband are interchangeable (like in Hebrew: Ba'al = Lord or Husband)

6. In the so-called Gospel of Phillip we read: "the Companion or Consort of the Saviour was Miryam Magdala and he used to often kiss her on the (mouth? feet? neck? : the NagHammadi text has a hole in it for the last word !) and the disciples said to themselves, Does the Teacher love her more than us?

Which is immediately followed by a large section entitled "The Mystery of the Bridegroom" where those "who see the sex act as dirty are as in the dark as the blind are always: but when the light comes, those with eyes to see will understand..."

The so-called Gospel of Phillip was one of the "heretical gospels" (i.e. which did not conform to later "orthodoxy" in Rome) which Iranaeus and his ilk spoke out against since it elevated the role of women in the earliest church to heights the later official Roman church rejected...to this day in fact.

7. It is clear to many scholars today that the final editors in the 4th century AD of the "New Testament" books have edited their "approved" texts and pushed the role of women into the background, where normally they may have played a much more important role in the fledgling Christian communities, e.g. the Annointing at Bethany where a woman pours an expensive alabaster jar of Shemen ("olive oil") over the head of "Jeezuz" at the house of Shimeon the jar maker (sometimes mistranslated as Simon the Leper).

Especially prominent in the gospel narratives are all the Miryams (or Marys) which suggest these women were wealthy women of Daviddic blood with businesses to finance the "Jesus movement" ("and the Marys gave the disciples money out of their own purses..." acccording to Luke) possibly to gain a role in the "new government" following a political coup when "the tabernacle of David will rise again" (e.g. Amos chapter 9) and the Hashmoneans would go back to just being "priests" again...

8. Josephus mentions that the Essenes (or 'Ossim / Greek: Essenoi) had two separate orders, one married and the other non married or celibate; the non married ones were equated with the Angels since they "resumed the previous state prior to the fall of Adam or the Watchers (of I Henoch) who seduced the daughters of Eve and produced the Giants" and thus were placed on a higher pedastal than the married ones.

So "Iesous" could have been BOTH an Essene AND married at the same time (the two are not mutually exclusive):

In fact many (if not most Essenoi) at any rate joined the Community of the Sons of Light (soundd familiar?) in older age after their children had grown up as a sort of Retirement community, wwhen they had given up the desires of the flesh to devote themselves to prayer and preparation for the arrrival of the Messiah, "in the desert prepare the way for our god" etc.

9. It was almost demanded of the Davids in 1st century Palestine that they be marriedin order to produce sons for the kingdom retake "out of the loins of their father David" (and the title "Son of David" is clearly one of the more prominent titles Iesous was given in the canonical Gospels, e.g. "Thou son of David have mercy on me!" etc.

So there is even more reason to suspect that Iesous was married and may have fathered children--although it is NOT true that 1st century Palestinian un-married male Jews were impossibly rare, as some people llike Dan Brown seem to think (for some reason !)

10. Don't forget that Water and Wine in John's gospel are heavilly symbolic words (baptism, the eucharist etc " cf: the crucifixion scena: "and out flowed blood and water...") and moreover, CANA was the cult centre for the pagan Mystery cult of Dionysius the bisexual god of wine who was said to have also performed water to wine miracles as part of his "mysteries"

11. The "Mysteries of Christ" (cf: Mark's gospel: "to you my disciples is explained the Mysteries of the Kingdom" or even Paul: "Behold I tell you a Mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be Transformed...") are just another of several mystery religions which were in active practice when John's Gospel was written (others included the Mysteries of Isis-Osiris, Bacchus-Dionysius, Zeus, Serapis, Eleusius (Demeter), Attis and Cybele, Adonis (Attannuzi) and other--all of which had water and wine ceremonies as well as death and resurrection myths. So John's gospel may be using the language of the Mysteries when he related his symbolic wedding story at Cana---something perhaps lost on most 21st century English speaking audiences...!

Just some thoughts off the top of my head today.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
So there is even more reason to suspect that Iesous was married and may have fathered children--although it is NOT true that 1st century Palestinian un-married male Jews were impossibly rare, as some people llike Dan Brown seem to think (for some reason !)


Yes, but it would be sufficently unusual for it to deserve a comment.

Especially in light of the fact that Jesus (Yeshua? Joshua? Iesous?, okay... the Christian Savior) was evidently commonly called Rabbi.

I appreciate your clarification on the Essenes. You are correct, I was wrong. (Hrm - how often do people say that?) . Which makes it even more likely that he was married.

You don't seem to like Dan Brown much, but you have to admit that he brought the historical issues surrounding topics like this out of the cold, dark corners where Holy Mother Church had swept them. Even if he does... streach the truth for a good story.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   
driley


It seems to me that the best evidence that Jesus was married lies in the silence of the canonical Gospels on the matter. If he were unmarried, that would be sufficently extraordinary in the Jewish culture of the time to demand a mention and some sort of explination.


Your argument from silence, seems to be unsupported from the text.
" The best evidence is no evidence" silence.

Your claim, “if Jesus were not married, it would be extraordinary"

All of the Apostles were married except John, Does the text state the case of marriage either way for any of the Apostles? Does it mention they are or are not married? St. John the Baptist was not married, does the text mention this fact? Elijah was also unmarried, it this mentioned? Many of the Men in the Bible were married and their wives are mentioned.

Mark 1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome
and came unto them.
Acts 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.

Now a counter to the argument: Wife is unseen, when she should be seen.

The Holy Virgin Mary,
Luke 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Now, if the text is ready to mention the mother of Jesus, and call her blessed, then it must also be ready to call the woman whom Jesus married blessed, if not, this would be incongruent.

His mother is mentioned above all of the other women, not his "wife". Nor, was his wife present at the Crucifixion, but the other women were. Where was His wife? Would she not have been a central figure in this event? Not only this, if she was not as courageous as the other women, then we could say even His wife was afraid, when the other women showed courage, even above the men. Not only all of this, but the women play a large roll the text, contrary to some peoples claims.

Next counter, Giving Mary to John:

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!
John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Now look at these wonderful verse, why would Christ have told his mother to go live with John who was not family?
If she had, other children then they would have taken care of her, right?
If Jesus had a wife, she would have taken in the mother. This is normal, until our times.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
check your facts,
Mark 15:40
Matt. 27:56
Luke 23:49 states that All the women that followed him stood afar off...
John 19:25

as to passing his mother to John , two points.
1 there is no evidence that this Gospel was in fact written by anyone named
John. The author never identifies themselves as any thing other than The
Beloved. It well could have been written by Lazarus, brother of The Magdalene,
whom is repeatedly identified as " he whom thou lovest".
The Magdalene is also named in all 4 gospels as the first to see the empty tomb
and the "Risen Jesus", arriving at dawn to preform the "wifely duties" ofanointing for burial.

In the formation of the Pauline version of this story the marital status of
the disciples was a nonissue. Pauls version of The christ however should not
associate "in that way" with women, this tradition has come down to us today.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Wolf,

Oh I have checked my facts, quite well. I am still waiting for some facts from you, on your claim that John did not write the Gospel of John.

John 21:23 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?

Please note the use of the word "he" not she.

Who wrote all the other books of John? How did this get passed everyone? Why is the grammar usage identical? His use of grammar is so different, scholars have noted that it is unknown except in the books of John. Such as he mentions the word believe 87 times, this is more than all of the other three gospels combined.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now who writes like that? Anybody you know?

Not only do we have his testimony, but St. Mary Magdalene’s, and the Virginia Mary’s and all of the other Apostles.

So I am very very very interested as to how you came upon information that proves all of this history is in error, could you show it to us? Maybe not?



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
i would direct your attention to this thread,
www.belowtopsecret.com...
for one possible explination of how this gospel may have changed sexes. Of
Course you do have to remember that thr RCC from its inception did everthing in
is power to remove anything feminine from its beliefs. The "Holy Mother" isnt
relative as she is of relative late model inclusion and was incerted as the RCC
answer to Magdalene worship.

Yes I could provide sources as I have done before. However as before I find
it a waste of band width to direct people to sources that they will not read.
This is of course MHO.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Black,
How can I claim that Mary Magdalene is white? I seen her arm. It is of a "light skinned person" , white could be too fine a term, middle eastern might be better. That is far better than your guess of, she is black.
Balaam's Donkey


Originally posted by stalkingwolf
i would direct your attention to this thread,
www.belowtopsecret.com...
for one possible explination of how this gospel may have changed sexes. Of Course you do have to remember that thr RCC from its inception did everthing in is power to remove anything feminine from its beliefs.


B. Donkey, I am happy to learn anything new, and will admit that my best guess was wrong gladly. I am sure I am not alone in wondering how, where, and when you saw her arm, and how you knew it was her arm if that was all you saw. My view that she may have been black was not so much a guess as a conclusion based on my studies. I really don't care what her skin tone was, it makes no difference to me, I just like to learn as much as I can about things that interest me, and her relationship with Yehoshua is one of those things.

Stalking Wolf, I was reading Luke in the KJAV a number of months ago, when I noticed in Chapter 3, verse 27, that a certain forebear of Joseph named Joanna was called 'son'. Since I knew that Joanna and John are the same name in many languages, the idea that the 'most beloved', whose gospel is markedly different from the other three, might have been a woman. There is also a reference in the KJAV to Joanna being present with Mary at the empty tomb. It would not surprise me to learn that the apostle John was in fact a woman named Joanna.
On a separate note, the only pope alleged to have been a woman was also named Joanna, or Joan depending who you read.



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIIIOn a separate note, the only pope alleged to have been a woman was also named Joanna, or Joan depending who you read.
I certainly got a kick out of reading about the fabled pope Joan in today's Toronto Star by Rosie Dimanno...

According to the story, the pope's womanhood was discovered when she went into premature labour during a procession. Shocked and revolted, the crowd stoned the pope to death. A tiny Madonna shrine on the Via del Querceti marks the spot where Joan, her believers claim, was killed and buried.

To prevent any similar deception, it is said, every newly elected pope has his genitals felt by the electing cardinals, groping through a hole in a ceremonial porphyry chair.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   


To prevent any similar deception, it is said, every newly elected pope has his genitals felt by the electing cardinals, groping through a hole in a ceremonial porphyry chair.

and people wonder about priests and little boys. maybe they are just practicing
to be cardinals?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf[and people wonder about priests and little boys. maybe they are just practicing
to be cardinals?
Listen, what do you think the week long meetings before the conclave were about?

It's my turn...

No it's my turn...

And they probably were not talking about who wears the fisherman's ring. I'll stop there, otherwise i'll be into measurements.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join