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.

 

Jesus was married in Kana?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

vivid1975
The Talmud of Jmmanuel discovered by a greek orthodox priest and translated from aramaic into german before being murdered along with his entire family, paints an entirely different picture of jesus - real name Jmmanuel.

He was not betrayed by judas, instead it was a guy with a similar name called judah ihariot, and did not die on the cross but instead went to india with his good friend judas to continue his teachings.

According to the Talmud, jesus didn't wander into the desert, but was instead taken up by a metallic light for 40 days and nights.


you do realize this was another Billy Meier hoax, right?
edit on 28-12-2013 by KidOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I love this topic, I really adore the topic of a possible "Married Jesus". It is one of the first therories that brought me outside of Christianity (The Church) for answers to multiple questions that my leaders and peers could never answer. In essence the very question "Could Jesus have been married?" is what awoke my inner self. If the answer were to be yes, then it would change EVERYTHING while changing nothing at all!

With what I have read and seen (documentary wise) I choose to believe in a married Jesus, and yes to Mary Magdalene. I also believe that Magdalene was NOT the repentant whore in The New Testament either as has been taught for centuries. Mary was a very popular name in those days ya know. As far as having definitive proof of a married Jesus, well there really isn't any more proof in the Biblical Canon of him having been married than there is of him having NOT been married. The Lost Gospels however are another story.

Anyone participating in this thread should be be aware of the Council of Nicaea I, so going into any significant amount of detail would be a form of rambling which I already do enough of lol. However I will give a brief summary for those who are not familiar. In 325 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine saw discention among his troops, mostly due to the variant teachings within the Christian religion. In order to unite his troops he decided to call together all the Christian leaders so they could (in their infinite wisdom) whittle down the beliefs into one "organized" set of teachings. Hence there was a month long debate and we were left with the basic New Testament. Hundreds of other teachings/beliefs were burned... I personally believe many were smuggled out or rewritten for posterity.

I truly believe that the Marital status of Christ is one of those teachings. The only reason that modern day Christians quote and believe only the things in the currently Canonized New Testament is simply because that is what is available to them. It's what remains from that council over 1680 years ago. Anything else has been deemed heretical by the Church and for good reason... to keep their power in tact. I mean we can't have women going around thinking that they're equal or that they could hold any real seats of power within the religion now can we?! And where would all those celebate priests be if they knew they could marry women and have fruitful human lives while still being pious?!

So yes, I believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and the proof is hidden within the lost teachings of Christianity. The Nag Hammadi, Gnostic and Dead Sea Scrolls gospels contain wisdom beyond what we currently have official access to. As to where or when exactly their marriage took place... well who knows? Maybe it was even during the missing 30 odd years of Jesus' life and therefore he returned onto the scene an already married man, which would be why it wasn't specifically discussed?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


I believe ba'al was also used as a word to describe g-d like hashem,El, Addonai etc but split to disassociate with the big bad caaninites. I would be more curios of the word caaninites as in Cain & Abel. Cain killed Abel in the field and forever after people had to work their lands to obtain crops. And now they associate ba'al as a lord of rain which was very important for crops if you ignored the murder n the lesson of having to work your fields after the murder you might pray to ba'al.

My main point of this is 'The Caanite (CAIN-enite) people are direct descendants from Cain.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that this was a translation error. I concluded this because of what it says later in the verse, or in the next verse, I cannot remember which. It basically illustrates the fact that Jesus and the disciples were invited to the wedding. Had the original intent been Jesus' own marriage, it would not have later said that he had been invited to the wedding. Make sense? So the author knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote this particular segment.

I can actually make out a bit of Hebrew and a bit of Greek, which I learned specifically for Bible translations, and reading the passage you are referring to, I cannot even see how such a thing could have been mistranslated, because it seems to me that there is absolutely no way that a single verb mistranslation could have altered the meaning to what you are describing.

Here is the first verse of John chapter 2, in Greek..."Καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καὶ ἦν ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐκεῖ." This specifically mentions, where it looks kind of like Kava, Κανὰ, which is Cana, and says it is a region in Galilee, the word for Galilee in Greek being Γαλιλαίας.

To break it down further, the part of the sentence that says "Καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας," translates roughly like this, if one were to simply put the translation for each word, without actually paying attention to sentence structure, and how the language works.

Καὶ - I think this is mainly an interjection, but ancient Greek is still a bit hazy when compared with modern Greek, but is probably used to start this sentence for one reason or another, but regardless, it doesn't have much of an effect on the overall meaning of the sentence. It could actually mean "on," or and, but, etc.
τῇ- The, although it can also mean these, this, or that, depending on the surrounding sentence structure.
ἡμέρᾳ- The day, basically a word that describes the daytime, as opposed to the nighttime.
τῇ- The same as the second word in the sentence, The, these, this, that, etc.
τρίτῃ- The third.
γάμος- In this case refers to a wedding in general, but could also be a wedding dinner, or something similar.
ἐγένετο - To happen or to occur, to start, etc.
ἐν- In, in this case, but can also mean with, and other things depending on the context.
Κανὰ- The city name, Cana.
τῆς Γαλιλαίας- Of Galilee.

Understand though that many languages cannot be translated word by word. When one attempts to do that, often times things will break down to some extent, whether slightly or greatly. Certain words are dependent on other words, and vice versa.

But here is what one should take from this post. A.) Jesus is described a little later to have specifically been INVITED to the γάμος, or wedding, meaning he could not have been the groom. And B.) Cana, in this instance, definitely means the town or city, because it is described as being in/of Γαλιλαίας, which is Galilee, the overlying region.

So hopefully that at least clears up the situation for you a bit. But I will say one thing that is quite important...You are correct to think that there are verses of the Bible which have been mistranslated. There are probably not too many, but it can be quite easy to take something in the wrong way, or to confuse one thing, and much of the time it comes down to the common sense of the person doing the translating, although often times the surrounding text is a big help. In fact, it is because of the fact that I was curious about mistranslations that I began learning how to translate Hebrew and Greek myself. But modern languages are somewhat different from their ancient counterparts, which makes things more confusing, but there are some great resources online, as well as in bookstores, to help. But it takes a tremendous amount of dedication, and I would suggest to anyone who wishes to learn an older language, or a language with different versions, to create an account on a forum specifically for that type of language.

This is because sometimes the only way to resolve a problem that you've encountered is to ask someone who knows more than you. Books can take you a long way, but sometimes the experience of others, who can address specific issues, is better. I have actually created a couple of other posts detailing other Bible versees in a similar manner to what I used in this post, and I was attempting to basically show someone how they to had unfounded beliefs in certain passages of the Bible, regarding translations.

Even for those who are not religious, I would highly recommend studying the Bible, or the Jewish equivalent. In fact, personally I like to compare them, and compare different versions of the same text, seeing how different people have translated things differently. Another issue with translation is that there is more than one way to convey the same meaning. I already said that word for word translation is often impossible, but the translator gets the gist of what the verse is saying, and then sets it down in English or another language in the way they think best. One can stick extremely close to the sentence structure of the source language, but sometimes that makes the translation sound strange in its wording. Anyway, I could talk about this type of stuff all day, as it is one of the handful of passions that I have, lol.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by IrishCream
 


Sorry, life got in the way and I ran out of time to "edit".

edit to add: I don't think the content of that particular verse is saying that it was Jesus' wedding, just that he and his disciples attended that specific ceremony by invition/obligation.

Also, as to my final "point" in my original reply; I lean heavily towards the marriage of Jesus and Mary happening before The New Testament picks up the story of his life around age 30.
edit on 28-12-2013 by IrishCream because: to add even more content

edit on 28-12-2013 by IrishCream because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Johnathanandheather
My main point of this is 'The Caanite (CAIN-enite) people are direct descendants from Cain.


The Canaanites are the descendants of Canaan, grandson of Noah. Not Cain.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
i remember hearing this little ditty when i was a kid it is a bit racist so i will censor some of the words

the people of canna were having a ball
until the ----- ate them all
funny thing they say about a ----
dont turn your back on a -------- ---

now back then blessings were always given in blood i have read

but i always wonder about the name cannibal



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

spartaocean
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 



We should also make not that during the construction of the New Testament there were over 200 hundred canons being looked over and held for possible selection for entry to the New Testament. However, after the construction of the New Testament the rest of the canons were burned.

Also to make note; the book of John was not written by John. He was already long deceased.

The Holy Bible may not be all that reputable as thought to be when you conduct a thorough analytical analysis on its authors and descriptions. Majority true, but it has been revised and rewritten numerous times over time and time again.


Actually, the bible IS the most reputable history book in existence, simply because the people writing the bible were only at most, writing about what was being told to them at most only 200 years after the events happened, and many books of the bible were written only 50 years after the events happened giving far more credibility than any other history book ever written. Many others have been written 500 years and more, after the event, making historical error far more likely than things being written about only 50 to 200 years after the events.

Just saying....



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

alienreality
Actually, the bible IS the most reputable history book in existence


In order to record history you need a certain mindset and method. Neutrality, documentation, records, annals, evidence, and more than one line of sources. Most of the OT is even written as epics, poems and songs, then there is the part when the prophets are hallucinating, and then the NT, the Jesus part. A biography in four editions, plus some letters written by various prophets talking about morals and then we have the Apocalypse to top it all.

So as for being a historical document, oh well.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: +NT



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   

FlyersFan...If he had been married, the gospels would have said so...


Maybe so, but i've also heard it said that marriage was a given in Judaism and that it would only have been written about if he had not been married.

Just saying.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

JiggyPotamus
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that this was a translation error.


Perhaps not an error, but hidden manna of some sort? Why was the wedding in Kana? As a noun it means 'grass' as a verb it means 'to get'. I suppose he wasn't going to get a new lawn for his house, so how about a lady?

The truth is, the place doesn't seem to exist, and there is no archaeological evidence of there ever having been a place called Kana in Galilee, no other place than in the Gospel of John can we hear about a place called Kana, there is a brook called Kana dividing Ephraim and Manasseh, it reads Reed or Grass.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

IrishCream

I mean we can't have women going around thinking that they're equal or that they could hold any real seats of power within the religion now can we?! And where would all those celebate priests be if they knew they could marry women and have fruitful human lives while still being pious?


And that's another clue in the beginning of the Gospel of John. Who ever heard of an unmarried rabbi? It is fundamental to a rabbi to be married, he is oblidged to be married.


I told him that not only are rabbis allowed to marry, they are obligated to marry. “Be fruitful and multiply” is a command to all, regardless of career or position in the community.


Source: www.chabad.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
To marry or not was not a law ...Ever.
Rabis were not married, Priest are not married by virtue of Jesus not being married.

No where does it say Jesus was married, nor does it say he was not.
To be un-married was not a crime, unusal yes and Jesus was unusal to say the least.

Referance

Pretty good site that will cover way more ground then I could.
Safe to say, Jesus was NOT married, but helad Mary in Very high regard as she was able to see and learn from the light.

>> someone must have watched or read the da vinci code is would seem. Love this topic. S%F
edit on 29-12-2013 by DogMeat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

DogMeat
To marry or not was not a law ...Ever.


Appart from it being the FIRST law God gave Man, that is.

Genesis 1:28 KJV
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful , and multiply , and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 2:24 KJV
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: Deleted Gen 1:22



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

DogMeat
To marry or not was not a law ...Ever.
Rabis were not married, Priest are not married by virtue of Jesus not being married.


Hypothetically speaking, if the Catholic church wanted to keep the proto-feminists at bay, then not omitting details of Jesus' marriage would be a big mistake for them.

They have motive and means . That doesn't mean this is true, but it does mean it daft to discount the possibility completely.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Yeah, I heard Jesus was a real player with the women.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Helpus2014
Yeah, I heard Jesus was a real player with the women.


Yeah, they keep screaming his name even to this day. Could make any man jealous...



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Utnapisjtim

IrishCream

I mean we can't have women going around thinking that they're equal or that they could hold any real seats of power within the religion now can we?! And where would all those celebate priests be if they knew they could marry women and have fruitful human lives while still being pious?


And that's another clue in the beginning of the Gospel of John. Who ever heard of an unmarried rabbi? It is fundamental to a rabbi to be married, he is oblidged to be married.


I told him that not only are rabbis allowed to marry, they are obligated to marry. “Be fruitful and multiply” is a command to all, regardless of career or position in the community.


Source: www.chabad.org...


I was actually going to include this little tid-bit, but was honestly too lazy to back it up lol. It was, and still is, frowned upon for a Rhabbi to be unmarried. The New Testament was written as a way of relaying the final years of Christ's life, his miraculous powers and his Divinity. It didn't go into great detail about his personal life per se, if it had we would have been told more about his brothers and sisters, his Earthly "father" Joseph and so on.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
On October 6, 1854, Apostle Orson Hyde (January 8, 1805 – November 28, 1878) Said,

"How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him [Jesus]? In old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah, called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband in some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous... When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white, 'And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou?' She said unto them,' Because they have taken away my Lord,' or husband, 'and I know not where they have laid him.' And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.' Is there not here manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred ties and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife" (Journal of Discourses 2:81).

So, Lord/Husband, is one in the same. Were they calling him Husband, but not, in the sense of the word?

Orson, went on to say.. "Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified" (Journal of Discourses 2:82).

Answering Hyde's question is difficult because scripture/story's gives no indication about who was married on that occasion in Cana. Since Mary, the mother of Jesus, was somehow involved in the preparation of the big event, it has been said that it could have been a relative, but no concrete evidence is available. One thing is certain, though; this could not have possibly been the wedding of Jesus.

Helpus2014, Seems so, the God-Man was hip with the ladies, Lot's of em'!
and
Utnapisjtim,


Yeah, they keep screaming his name even to this day. Could make any man jealous...
Tooo, Funny! Thanks, for the laugh!



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


It's true, the Gospel of John doesn't directly reveal who was 'to get' married, but we know that Jesus went to Kana, and that all his friends, and even his mother were present, who was it that all the ones we know were present knew? Jesus.

Then. Mother Mary is suddenly frustrated going through the supplies, when she realises they have ran out of wine, and demands Jesus do something about it. Being the rhetoric genius he was, he gets the brilliant idea, and tells Mary to fill water in the empty vessels and tell the servants to serve it, and Mary starts bossing the servants around. Who if not the mother of the husband would do these things? Worry about the wine and being in position to boss servants around....

Jesus took the water and explained how water is the better wine. It doesn't stain your cloathes, it cleans it instead, and so on. You can drink as much as you want, well nearly, and you won't get a headache and empty your stomac the day after drinking it, unless something had died in it or similar. Children can drink it just as anyone and won't get sick, and the wise men attending agreed, saying "certainly, he saved the best wine to the end". And that's another clue, for the text says Jesus served the best wine in the end, after he had served the bad wine. Now, what guest provides the wine in any wedding, good or bad, unless it is the Main Guest Himself.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: Clearup and syntax

edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: More clearup



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join