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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


I'm really not sure, "who" would do it, if not the mother of the husband. Could it be misunderstood? In , If, the women called their husbands lord, (they in fact, would call Jesus lord) leading to mothers, and mother in laws alike (everyone for that matter?), to act in such a way. And to be written, interrupted this way?

Reading Hyde Just got me thinking.




posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


Well, there are many reasons to call a man lord, being his wife is one of them, being his disciple is another. However, for Rosemary to ask a stranger where her lord is, leads atleast me to the understanding that Jesus was indeed married to Mary. The very word "to Marry" refers to Rosemary and her given lord's union.

Edit: unfortunately, the original Aramaic gospel is lost, so we can't currently know which word Rosemary used that translates into lord in English via Koine Greek. Was she asking where her ba'al was or where her adonai was, or even where YHWH had been moved? All three words translate into Kurios in Koine Greek and further into Lord in English, but in Hebrew, ba'al means husband, adonai means boss and YHWH means Lord as in Lord God. Translating the Word into Greek left out this important information.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: The obvious

edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: +?



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I think that you are correct. Personally, this was the most likely scenario in my mind, and would have answered a lot of questions which are raised. I'm not sure if any of you knows any true orthodox Jews, but from having had some interaction, I can say a couple of things which can be taken:

1. That if you are a man who is over 20 yrs old, (let alone 30), and not married... you are pretty much viewed as there being something wrong with you. So with that being said, anything that you have to say, would probably be blown off by everyone.

2. If you had a particular agenda that you wanted to accomplish, (such as Jesus), you would most likely try to fit into and/or acclimate to all the societal norms of his period. Which at that time, meant that he would have had a trade (carpenter), and would have been definitely married. Jesus would have obviously done these things, so His message would be received by the people.

3. This also brings to mind, something which I had read once, which (if memory serves correct), came from an ancient text which was discovered. It basically talked about how Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute, but rather, came from some branch of royal lineage. Essentially, she was rich. This would explain the question, as to who was footing the bill??... I mean, you have 13 full-grown men who don't work, and just go around and preach and perform miracles, doesn't someone have to pay for dinner?
edit on 29-12-2013 by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by InCeNdIaDrAcOnIs
 


You make some good points, and I also tend to think that Jesus probably would have been married, especially since he didn't even begin his ministry until he was 30. But, I don't know if we could assume all Jewish prophets were married. Was John the Baptist married? He was kind of a loner and a bit of a nut case to the mainstream of the day. Elijah, Ezekiel, Jonah......married with children?????? If so, they had some very patient wives..........



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


Just a thought...

Some argue Jesus was an Essene. If this is accurate, Jesus being unmarried would not be unusual.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 


All great points. That's what makes these types of conversations so cool.... no one really knows the answers to the questions. For instance, there is only fragmentary evidence left, we don't really know what the daily life was like for people living in Jesus' respective time and location.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

FlyersFan
Jesus wasn't married at Cana. The scripture quote is clear that he and the disciples were INVITED to the wedding. So it wasn't his wedding. If he had been married, the gospels would have said so. (I'm sure those who subscribe to the 'jesus married mary magdellen' notion will disagree).


Jesus is not married i watch this in some movie in youtube he turn the water into wine.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Utnapisjtim
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


Edit: unfortunately, the original Aramaic gospel is lost, so we can't currently know which word Rosemary used that translates into lord in English via Koine Greek. Was she asking where her ba'al was or where her adonai was, or even where YHWH had been moved? All three words translate into Kurios in Koine Greek and further into Lord in English, but in Hebrew, ba'al means husband, adonai means boss and YHWH means Lord as in Lord God. Translating the Word into Greek left out this important information.
edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: The obvious

edit on 29-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: +?


And this right here is the major problem with our current incarnation of "The Word Of GOD"!

I was raised in the Christian Church, as some of you may know, and I was rather uncerimoniously "uninvited" from my Youth Group at the age of 15 for asking too many questions. The question of numerous translations possibly corrupting the original meanings of parables, stories and direct quotes was one of them. I attempted to illustrate my point by proposing a game of "whisper down the lane". Well they would have none of that and after asking a few more questions that were considered disturbing, I was pulled aside and told that I was disrupting the spiritual growth of my peers. They said I probably shouldn't come back and maybe I needed to pray and repent so that Jesus could work on my heart.

Well needless to say I didn't go back, have been doing a lot of research on my own and that is the main reason why I LOVE this topic! I also love ATS because it is a great place to meet like-minded (and unlike-minded) people in order to foster my growth, ask questions, get some answers AND have access to so many different perspectives!
edit on 30-12-2013 by IrishCream because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 



What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!


Jesus' crucifixion hadn't happened yet, but other crucifixions were pretty common.

Jesus then wasn't refering to his crucifixion but appealing to a picture of something that would have been known to those with whom he was speaking.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


It makes no sense trying to turn a place name into a Hebrew verb. The story says that the wedding took place in Cana. Turning a place name into a verb makes the verse make no sense:

On the third day there was a wedding "to get" in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

...unless weddings are something we can buy.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


What you quoted though aren't contradictions as they're not mutually exclusive. You must think pretty highly of yourself to think that after 2000 years, no church father or theologian didn't put thought into how the various accounts jive.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


My problem with the whole picture/story is that there Certainly was crucifixions, as well, as many other men called Jesus. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls, dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey.

Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It's not mentioned at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healing's, all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Too strange to be a coincidence!

According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus. But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Aramaic means ‘Son of the Father’!
Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable. Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.


Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

'Jesus of Nazareth' supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from partisan Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion). The horrendous truth is that the Christian Jesus was manufactured from plundered sources, re-purposed for the needs of the early Church.

So, was Jesus married? hmmm. Did said Jesus even walk this earth?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

octotom
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


It makes no sense trying to turn a place name into a Hebrew verb. The story says that the wedding took place in Cana. Turning a place name into a verb makes the verse make no sense:

On the third day there was a wedding "to get" in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

...unless weddings are something we can buy.


Back in the days, and still all around the world, marriage was and is all about economy. But back then, having a beautiful daughter meant buckets of cash having to change hands between the families. So yes, unless you could pay for her release, you were lost no matter how much you'd love eachother. Also, choosing a partner for your son or daughter was the mantra, marriage was dealt between the heads of the two families involved, the same way arranged weddings happen today all around the world, especially in the Muslim world.

BTW. A Jewish wedding is quite something to attend, and everyone should try to get invited to one during their lives, it's quite a ball, ritual drinking and breaking og glasses, old and young dancing crazy and so much food and drink and tradition you can taste the walls, it's nearing biblical proportions.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


I don't want to get side tracked here... But, I do think highly of myself, yes I do. But not in the sense your thinking, anyway, If Jesus had been the creation of a single author his character might have been consistent and believable. But as the work of many hands the godman is a mass of contradictions, most notoriously over his very divinity.

Is the superhero God? It's something that Christ-followers have drawn blood over at least since the time of Arius in the 4th century. Even a child could assemble a mass of quotations both for and against the idea (all the way from "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30) to "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46).

But what could we expect from a character pencilled in from sundry episodes lifted from Jewish scripture and a collection of aphorisms?

In Luke 16 – the so-called "Parable of the Dishonest Servant" – Jesus, with approval, describes a rich man praising the dishonesty of a servant. The steward, accused of waste, faces dismissal so he dreams up a strategy to secure his future.

"I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses."
– Luke 16.4.

The "they" refers to each of his master's debtors, whom the steward connives with to mark down their debts. Yet apparently:

"The lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." – Luke 16.8.


Mr 'Perfect Jesus' adds:

"And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." – Luke 16.9.

Wow! – not one for the Sunday School. But then JC not only praises dishonesty he is also, it seems, quite able to be dishonest. According to John 7, Jesus and his gang were strolling in Galilee and the merry men urged the boss to wrought wonders in "Jewry" at the Feast of Tabernacles. JC declines:

"I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come." – John 7.8.

Hardly had the followers departed when the superman does precisely what he said he wouldn't do:

"But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."
– John 7.10.

It's claimed that JC's perfection was shown by his unbounded "humility" – and we all know how wonderful it is to show humility, way up there with curing cancer and feeding the hungry.

Would you believe the majestic superstar left the comforts of eternal heaven to rough it for a few years on earth. A carpenter in the boondocks of Galilee, for chrisake? A bit like a drop-out with a trust fund. Aren't you impressed?

Jesus Christ, in fact, is incredibly arrogant. He calls himself "Lord and Master" (John 13.13) and those who follow him "Little children" (John 13.33). Or else, he's the "Shepherd" and you are the "sheep" – and sheep, of course, get fleeced!

JC's arrogance actually began early in life. Imagine the anguish that a 12-year-old going missing for 3 days causes his parents. Now the fable tells us that Jesus went missing and his "sorrowful" parents searched for three days before eventually finding the boy at the Temple. Yet Jesus doesn't apologize – he blames them for not knowing that he was doing his "real father's" business!

"And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them." – Luke 2.48,50.


So why does the Church assign "humility" to their cocksure hero? For the same reason he is, when required, holy, righteous, gentle and meek. Quite simply, he is the measure of all things, roaring like a lion and bleating like a lamb, a conquering monarch and a willing sacrifice.

Any suffering you might have to endure is as nothing compared to his suffering. And even though you may not have a trust fund, and you're certainly not going to heaven, the priests would have you follow his sublime example. Attend Church; keep to the rules; do what you're told; be humble and don't even think about complaining. When you're dead you'll get your reward!



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

octotom
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


It makes no sense trying to turn a place name into a Hebrew verb. The story says that the wedding took place in Cana.


Then where is Kana? Where else than in the beginning of the John gospel can we find any trace of a place called Kana? Unless for a brook or stream far away from where the wedding is supposed to have happened, carrying the name. Steam hmmm, sounds familiar?


Turning a place name into a verb makes the verse make no sense:

On the third day there was a wedding "to get" in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

...unless weddings are something we can buy.


Well it may not make sense in English, but if you read it in Greek or Aramaic/Hebrew, it certainly makes sense. The sentance could read:

"On the third day was the upcoming wedding, and the mother of Jesus was there"

Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew have completely different syntax and gramatics rules than English. What makes sense in English, makes no sense in Hebrew and so on, they are completely different lingual systems in completely different lingual families.
edit on 30-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: Clearup



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

C21H30O2I
For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey.


"The census" part is a time code, a date reference, naming the annual date of Jesus' birth. After Babylon, probably inspired by the Babylonian astrologers, Jewish rabbis divided the Torah into parts so that the whole Torah would be completed in one or four years depending on which system. Thus the Torah becomes a calendar, every chapter and verse represent a date, down to the very day depending on which part of the parasha is read, and given you have the year (revealed by 'The star of Bethlehem' and the reference to who were ruling). One of these parts or 'parasha' is called 'Parashat Ki-Tisa', commonly refered to as "The Census":


Jews read it on the 21st Sabbath after Simchat Torah, generally in late February or March

en.wikipedia.org...(parsha)

As I will demonstrate in a coming thread, there is quite a lot of hidden date and time references in the Nativity story in Matthew. Jesus was certainly not born at Christmas Eve 1AD. The truth is hidden between the lines.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


Your contributions to this thread are simply outstanding and very much appreciated by myself!! As I've stated, I have done a lot of research on my own outside the "Church" and have learned a lot more than I ever would have if I remained in that dogma rich community. HOWEVER, my knowledge has grown exponentially because of what you have posted, thank you.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread topic lol!



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by C21H30O2I
 


One of my favorite quotes is one that shows him as no less than a heartless rasist prick:

Matthew 15:21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IrishCream
 


Thank you, IrishCream. You are very welcome. I myself started to research, at a young age. My family is very religious especially, my Grandmother.... was. Her unwavering faith and her kindness, I looked up to. She was my hero and idol.
So, of course, at a young age I decided to walk in her path. It was than, that I started to read the bible and found many inconsistency's. Which lead me down a road of enlightenment. I became, what I though I would never become, an Atheist.

That brings me to where I am today. A truth seeker. I question everything especially, scripture. Even though it hurt me to doubt my lovely Grandma. I felt anger at times, to think she was mislead, even though her faith never broke and she was very happy..



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Utnapisjtim
 


In Matthew's story it is "magi from the east" who traipse to Bethlehem, not the holy family. In Matthew Joseph and Mary already live there.

Matthew knows nothing of the census so important to Luke's alternative story.

Reminds me of our government's military jobs, being compartmentalized. As to not let everyone know all aspects of the job...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join