Jesus was married in Kana?

In the beginning of the Gospel of John we hear of a wedding in a place called Kana (Gr. transl.) where Jesus takes control and talks water into wine.

Perhaps Kanah is not the Greek name of the place north of Galilee, but let's say a Hebrew verb which means 'to get', i.e. 'to get married' that got lost in translation somewhere along the road:
Kanah (Heb. verb): www.biblestudytools.com...

Compare with Heb. proper name Kanah which is not the same place as Gr. Kana:
Kanah (Heb noun pr): www.biblestudytools.com...
Kana (Gr. noun pr): www.biblestudytools.com...

And there is a particular verb for being married or being a husband, it's 'Ba'al':
Ba'al (Heb. verb): www.biblestudytools.com...

As a noun Ba'al means huband, lord or owner:
Ba'al (Heb. noun): www.biblestudytools.com...

The proper name Ba'al refers to several Canaanite deities and means 'Lord':
Ba'al (Heb. noun pr): www.biblestudytools.com...

Any thoughts?

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).

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.

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).

To be fair, there are reasons to keep the possible union of Jesus and Mary hidden...the most important one being that any child of theirs would be the intersection between two royal bloodlines. There's also the rumors of a gospel written by a daughter named Sarah.

Any child that Jesus would have been father to would have been immortal......which would really have complicated things.

As well Jesus is call a "twig" a "sprout" Hebrew, out of the root of Jesse. Had it been intended that He have a line of real decedents, flesh and blood, Jesus would have been called a limb or something larger as words go for describing family trees. He was pictured in the live sprout, a bud, out of Aarons dead wood staff.

What becomes very obvious when the parts of the book are rearranged into the order in which they were written is that the story grew with the telling. For example, if you look at the central mystery of Christianity, the ‘Resurrection’, we find that in Mark’s gospel (the earliest) the visitors to the tomb find a sitting figure, ‘a young man in a white robe’ (Mark 16.5). He could have been anybody. Thirty years later the story is rather different: you can choose between the sudden appearance of ‘two men’, standing in ‘shining garments’ (Luke 24.4); or ‘a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven … His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (Matthew 28.2,3).

Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)



Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

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!

Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom, upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. So, pick what story you like best and it must be true!

Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?

"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."

"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away."


The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!

Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:

"And immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)


Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and find Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)


Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:

"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)


Or was John nearer the truth when he says:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)

By a convoluted process of interpolation, accretion and redaction, the whole compendium of fables and fancy was brought into being. The four Gospels had a precedent in the ‘sayings of Jesus,’ epithets of wisdom attached to a shadowy Christ figure. Progressively anthropomorphized into a human figure, a series of anecdotes, ‘reminiscences’ and stories were attached to his name.

What follows is a retracing of this great work of fiction, this history of a fake history; not the legend of a birth but the birth of a legend.

My point, Believe what story you read/make up, in/about, the christian bible. And it will be the right fable.

FlyersFan
Jesus wasn't married at Cana. The scripture quote is clear that he and the disciples were INVITED to the wedding.

'Invited' is not the most likely translation, but 'called' or even 'ordered' is.

εκληθη kalew,v [kal-eh'-o] 1) to call 1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice 1b) to invite 2) to call i.e. to name, by name 2a) to give a name to 2a1) to receive the name of, receive as a name 2a2) to give some name to one, call his name 2b) to be called i.e. to bear a name or title (among men) 2c) to salute one by name
Source: www.gospel-john.com...

'Kaleo' is basically the same as 'Kaleuo' which means 'to order'. So a vald translation of John 2:2 would be that 'both Jesus and his disciples were expected to be there'. Back then marriage was basically a proud father practically a father selling his daughter to the son of another father, involving economic transactions and contracts with clauses. With Jesus the father issue is rather clouded, but you get the point, it wasn't quite like today.

Part of the bargain was that the becoming husband would have to build a house within one year to be truely wed in a second wedding after which the wifey moved in and the real fun began to complete the purpose of marriage. And what is it Jesus shows us in John 1 again? Ah, his house...

C21H30O2I

Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:

"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)



Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

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!

Although I appreciate your endeavor here the fact that He used the cross as a symbol before hand lends nothing to the point....i.e. he couldn't have used it because His own crucifixion hadn't taken place yet. Not only does it not support your claim, it presupposes that anyone anywhere could not indicate an analogy of any sort of common occurrence.

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.

My favorite Catholic forgery is the 'Comma Johanneum': en.wikipedia.org...

And the whole story about Jesus and 'throwing the first stone' is a later addition.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


I am in an agreement with some your information. Especially about the needs and wants over the State and people from the Church perspective.

reply to post by Logarock


Duly noted. However, I simply, was showing the mass contradictions in the bible. (I certainly did not right the work.) By , quoting a few. We could show, discuss, debate, them all day. There are so many, I mean the whole book.

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.

reply to post by spartaocean


Hey spartaocean, how are you? Good to know. They want that illusion it's not for the needs of the church, although promotion of the god-man, at the same time.

In post 9/11 America, loving Jesus is equated with patriotism, whereas dissent from the administration is unpatriotic and a stand against God.

George W. Bush snuggled up to Jesus – and crucial evangelical support – during his father's 1988 presidential campaign. In 1999 Bush named Christ as his favourite "philosopher" (did he know any others?). He later intimated that he had been called by God to run for president.

"When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."

Bush's "born-again" faith certainly gained him political advantage.

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.

Care to provide a link or source?

Logarock
Any child that Jesus would have been father to would have been immortal......

Any child that Jesus would have fathered would have been 3/4 human.
I don't see how the child would have to have been immortal.
???? I'm not following. please explain. Thanks.

It's possible but I also think that they were 'Invited' to this wedding. I am a believer that Jesus possibly married Mary. Although, there again, the evidence isn't totally solid.

Utnapisjtim, My apologies for any off topic posts. I will not engage in any discussion other than the topic at hand. Thanks, for the thread.

C21H30O2I
Utnapisjtim, My apologies for any off topic posts. I will not engage in any discussion other than the topic at hand. Thanks, for the thread.

No problem, I can do the same if I'm preying outside my regular habitat

amazing
It's possible but I also think that they were 'Invited' to this wedding. I am a believer that Jesus possibly married Mary. Although, there again, the evidence isn't totally solid.

The best proof or clue I see, as to whether Jesus was married, is the fact that it isn't mentioned anywhere in the texts that he wasn't. Had he been unmarried it would have been outrageous having the contact he had with Rosemary and the other women who followed him around.

Utnapisjtim



The best proof or clue I see, as to whether Jesus was married, is the fact that it isn't mentioned anywhere in the texts that he wasn't. Had he been unmarried it would have been outrageous having the contact he had with Rosemary and the other women who followed him around.

edit on 28-12-2013 by Utnapisjtim because: Syntax errors

it was uncommon a man in his 30`s to be unmarried, so yes many have speculated if he was married or not. Personally i dont know