Jesus was married in Kana?

C21H30O2I
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..

This is very similar to my experience. My Great-Grandmother was as devout as they come (she was Brethren, a much more sctrict offshoot of Mennonite, but not quite Amish) and as kind as the day is long. She was more a mother figure to me than my mother and was definitely the family Matriarch. I went to a "Born Again, Spirit Filled Evangelical" church during my youth and was baptized at age 12. I really believed I was going to be a life long Christian, even attending anti-abortion rallies and such. However, the older I got and the more into "the Word" I delved, well things just started making less and less sense. I formed many questions and asked the people who were supposed to be my leadership for answers... didn't work out so well.

I'm not an Athiest per se, but I certainly do not believe in a man with a beard wearing a white robe sitting on a throne of clouds passing out judgements either lol!

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Aye, my bad, I meant Luke. Thanks for sorting that out. My bad....

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Hey, Utnapisjtim I am familiar with that quote. I read many times. It dose paint him as a racist. But he makes it all right. According to Matthew or Luke.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


It's easy to get confused... well, for me so much rehashed/changed material. For instance, for much of Christian history the gospel of Matthew has been given primacy that honor actually belongs to the gospel of Mark, the shortest and least sophisticated of the Jesus stories. Mark's literary creation was the starting point for both Matthew and Luke. Of approximately eleven thousand words found in Mark, ninety-five per cent of those words entire paragraphs and stories in fact are reused in the gospel of Matthew and sixty-five per cent of them in the gospel of Luke. Contrariwise, where Matthew and Luke differ most from each other in the nativity and resurrection episodes it is in material not found and not copied from Mark.

Thus, to understand the trajectory by which the Jesus tale developed from an original hero a righteous man infused by God's holy spirit through a hybrid godman possessing powers, to find final form as God incarnate on earth, one is best advised to begin with Mark's masterpiece.

"The practice which the writers of these books employ is not more false than it is absurd. They state some trifling case of the person they call Jesus Christ, and then cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case.

But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to the New Testament."

– Thomas Paine

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Thank you so much for bringing this topic to the forum! I am finding myself in awe of the knowledge being shared in this thread as well as finding many more tid bits to further research!

I am severly lacking in sufficient knowledge to contribute on the same level as yourself and several other members, aside from "remembering reading some of this or that, here or there over the years" lol! Hence my inability to back up my thought that one could not be a Rhabbi without being married (or at least not a very respected one), that's where your knowledge came into play and validated my knowledge... felt kinda good actually.

reply to post by IrishCream


Sounds like I'm reading my own words. My Grandma raised me, was there way more then my mother. She was the CEO of our family (my grandma) I was put in Catholic school... and thought that was my calling.. I started to question scripture and was shuffled to the side and told to have more faith..... They created a monster LoL.. I wanted to learn all I could about the Christian faith. I'm happy things turned, they way they did!

C21H30O2I
Hey, Utnapisjtim I am familiar with that quote. I read many times. It dose paint him as a racist. But he makes it all right. According to Matthew or Luke.

Yes, he does, but appart from that it's a peculiar story which has made me eyebrows rise and for more than one reason. Firstly there is the rasism, that's obvious, then secondly, we see Jesus actually admitting he's wrong (which I believe is the only place in all of scripture), and thirdly it's so educational in it's style that it's almost sickening, and something tells me it's a fake addition alltogether. There are many similarities with the 'cast the first stone story', which is a well known fake, or was atleast added long after the oldest known manuscripts came around-- the two stories are just very what-would-Jesus-do'ish and totally punch-line driven, almost like a stand-up joke one of those constructed urban myths. Well, I don't know. What's your take?

C21H30O2I
"The practice which the writers of these books employ is not more false than it is absurd. They state some trifling case of the person they call Jesus Christ, and then cut out a sentence from some passage of the Old Testament and call it a prophecy of that case.

But when the words thus cut out are restored to the place they are taken from, and read with the words before and after them, they give the lie to the New Testament."

– Thomas Paine

I am of the opinion that the Beast of Revelation refers to such conduct. If you take the Hebrew gemaria-values of Jesus you get 616, the oldest known 'Number of the beast'. Tailored verses made to fit certain doctrines and policies etc. Like the doctrine telling us he had to die for our sins, and the magic properties given to this very human sacrifice, including ritual torture and killing, a magic spear, blood with super natural powers, rebirth, speeches in sheol, tombs... well try telling a Christian that Jesus experienced the love and romance in his life that all humans deserve, and had offspring as an extension of this, that he survived the cross without really being dead, simply because the centurion felt sorry for the man, and see what happens: They'll gather to bloody stone you on the spot, I'll tell you.

Somehow, it was extremely important for the church that Jesus was born outside in the middle of the freezing winter, had no romantic experiences, that he had no offspring, that he was God incarnate and performed a handful miracles even before breakfast on an average day, and that he was an 'acceptable' spotless human sacrifice that rendered him dead and how he miraculously after having stayed dead for a couple of days simply came back to life, and that this human sacrifice somehow worked with God, granting the believers in this mumbo jumbo green cards to Heaven as soon as they'd die themselves of course. If they'd give away what they owned before dying, they'd get business class seats.

Woops, drifted a litte off topic here, but my point is that yes, much has been lost in translation and retranslation, interpretation, tailoring, adding and deleting. So much that I doubt Jesus or anyone who actually knew him, would recognise himself.

One such interresting thing is the word Kyriakos, translated into Church and given as the official etymology to the word. The word didn't exist in the time they refer to it. It's a construct courtecy of the RC Church of course.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


My take, it is somewhat educational to the reader. That Jesus admits being wrong and portrayed as compassionate to mother and daughter. However it is hard for me to take any of it as truth. In one verse he is the loving father. and not so far along, he is evil as ever. To much fabrication/Urban legends, to accept that quote as fact. Even, more so with the similarity's to "He that is without Sin"

The well-known story of the "woman taken in adultery" – John 7.53 - 8.11 – is a late (probably 5th century) forgery The passage is not found in any early Greek or Syriac manuscript. An embryonic version of the story appeared perhaps a century earlier, often added into other gospels! Not one of the early Greek fathers commented on the passage, not even Origen and Chrysostom, who wrote commentaries on John's gospel.

Which rather makes the familiar "He that is without sin cast the first stone" (8.7) a literary orphan! Same applies to the aforementioned.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

much has been lost in translation and retranslation, interpretation, tailoring, adding and deleting

My point exactly. So much has been changed to suit the Church/political view whatever, its muddy water. There's a thread out here now from "wildtimes" I think. Where a conservative/Fundamentalist, group is seeking help to rewrite even more...

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Indeed. Unlike you, I still have some faith left, but it's far more down to earth than the fluttering wax dragon of the Church presented in the Gospel. To me being the Son of God has to do with being a heir to the throne of David. I believe Jesus had offspring and that there is an existing royal bloodline with heirs to this throne, in a straight line of firstborns including Jesus or whatever his real name was. Being the king of the house of David is called the Meshiach or the Messiah. He or she is out there somewhere and is the True Messiah. The False one takes seven year terms as president of Israel these days.

So, yeah, there is still some of the old affection left in me for the guy, but I'm not a very religious man really. Religion is more an obsession to me than faith, to be honest. I love esoteric litterature and chrystallic structure of such books as those included in the Bible.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


"Bush's "born-again" faith certainly gained him political advantage."
How did this benefit "america" or mankind since Bush claimed that 'God" wanted him to run for president. Sure if you becomes a christian..or a muslim or a budhist, your life will change, but is this change for the good of all or for a selective few?? Is the change any good at all or are you using "selective perception"

C21H30O2I
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

much has been lost in translation and retranslation, interpretation, tailoring, adding and deleting

My point exactly. So much has been changed to suit the Church/political view whatever, its muddy water. There's a thread out here now from "wildtimes" I think. Where a conservative/Fundamentalist, group is seeking help to rewrite even more...

A thought experiment, you seem like an intelligent and reflected person, so I bet you get it:

Apparently the Apocalypse of John originally used 616 where 666 is written these days. Now 616 is a code for the Romanized pseudo-messiah called Jesus. If you take the Hebrew gematria values of Jesus, you get 616. So let's say John wrote 616, that 616 was indeed NOT a typo like the Christian mantra goes, but the real deal.

Now the prophecy concerning this number says that the false prophet (ie. the Pope) will make everyone alive carry the number-, name-, mark- of the beast. Let's say the Pope in his Curia of scarlet cardinals changes 616 into 666 at some point, a well known funnynumber held sacred and revered through time since the beginning of civilisation. From "the number of a man" it turns into "the number of Man" since 666 has to do with our very proportions and the reason a straight angle has 90 degrees.

Now. Suppose you do as proposed by the Cross and stretch your arms out. At arm's length the width of your hand equals 10 degrees of the total 360 degree horizon. In other words it takes 36 hands on arms length to complete the circle. Add together the numbers between 1 and 36 and you have, you guessed it, 666. Also, the width of your hand corresponds to the height of your forehead. Sounds familiar?

By changing one letter in the Apocalypse of John, the number of the Beast goes from including Jesus (who is willingly supposed to carry our sins), to include all humans that has ever lived, from the smallest baby to the oldest man or for that matter a lone mother aged 33. If your hand is bigger than normal, so is your arm and so is the distance between the eye and the height of the forehead to correspond with the geometry of Man.

Got it? Can you see how the very prophecy (or plan?) related to the number of the beast was fulfilled in an instance by the stroke of a pen?

PS: Amazing hydrocarbon in your name and why do you have a picture of my girlfriend in your avatar?

I love esoteric litterature and chrystallic structure of such books as those included in the Bible.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


I do too.

I respect your beliefs and your stance on religion. You're very knowledgeable. It wasn't to long ago, I was, very similar to you. Things changed for me along the way. I have always been somewhat of a skeptic though. (being a question asking information junkie) No matter how taboo the subject.

I've had a great time participating in your thread. It's Been very educational and thought provoking for me. Thank you.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


Thanks a lot, that just made my day. Kudos to you too , it's been great reading your thoughts and knowledge, being an atheist or a Christian or whatever doesn't matter, it's like having brown or blond hair, it's all the same to me, it's what's moving around in your mind and the ability to put two and two together that matters. And I suspect Jesus would say the same thing had he come around in his star-cruiser on a dark and stormy day like this one.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


I can see your point. It's a numbers game. Isopsephy, is a way of working things out. Truly sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword.

Amazing hydrocarbon in your name and why do you have a picture of my girlfriend in your avatar?

Ah, thank you, It is ever healing. Very astute observation. As far as your gilfriend goes... dude, I met her online LoL That there, is a lovely barista at Full Throttle.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


My sentiments precisely. It's been a great chat. I don't prejudge anyone and mostly get along with everyone. I feel everyone has something to teach me, They throw out this.... vibe and I'm receiving it. Most are good, some not so much. But I always learn fantastic things. Regardless of religion or race....... I love connecting/engaging with people and learning what they have to offer, it's my friend network of awesomeness!

C21H30O2I
As far as your gilfriend goes... dude, I met her online LoL That there, is a lovely barista at Full Throttle.

Hehe. Still shaking after this morning's regular two cups à 6x espresso. Brewing a Christmas mix of Kigobe and Burundi these days. Very nice flavour with hints of vanilla and chocolate. Thanks for participating, hope to see you around my threads in the future.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Still cannot be even proven the man existed, and you're trying to spin a marriage on him. SMH.