The Wedding of Jesus

[bananabrain]

Jesus was supposedly crucified, which suggest he broke a Roman law.

a point i have made a number of times - it is not a capital punishment under jewish law and, in any case, as i have also pointed out, it was virtually impossible to get a conviction in a capital case unless the entire court was bent - the sanhedrin procedure described in the gospels certainly does not meet the required standard for the halakhah.

Jesus is called the 'Son of Man'

yes - the phrase ben adam is still used in hebrew just as it was back in the day, to mean a man or a human; in the context of jesus' time, it would probably have been more likely to have have more colloquial connotations like referring to yourself as "muggins here". i find it a bit odd that people read all these religious connotations into it, when it's not much more than referring to someone as "that jesus bloke".

The point is that a Rabbi in Israel, then and today, had to be a married man or about to get married. Otherwise, he could not be "ordained" as such.

eh? what? now hang on a second. where does it say that you have to be married to be a rabbi? i know plenty of unmarried rabbis - as orthodox as you like, if you prefer. i want a proper jewish source if you're going to claim something like that. if you're maintaining that it would have been odd for *anyone* male and over the age of about 16 to be *unmarried*, however, then i would entirely agree with you. so, in my view, it's extremely likely that jesus was married (and probably to mary magdalene, because nobody has pointed out any other candidates) because that would have otherwise have "caused much comment", particularly as he seemed to spend so much time hanging out with her, at a time when casual fraternisation between the sexes was somewhat frowned upon.

According to John 12:3, Mary would pour the perfume on Jesus' feet and "dry" them with her hair. There is no other way to take "dry" here as but massaging of Jesus' feet. And here, you have an extra evidence that they were married. A religious Jew would never allow a woman even to touch him in private. Let alone to massage and kiss his feet in public.

i would agree with this. more to the point, "feet" could be a euphemism. urine is referred to in the Mishnah (C1-2) as "leg-water" and "sitting" and "laughing" are often considered to be euphemisms for sex. it is entirely possible that the significance of this is lost on a hellenised audience.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Dream]

There is no malice in my attitude to exaggerate by just a little the massage with perfume and not only the spilling of some drops of it. But, tell me, can hair ever dry any thing? Obviously not. According to John 12:3, Mary would pour the perfume on Jesus' feet and "dry" them with her hair. There is no other way to take "dry" here as but massaging of Jesus' feet. And here, you have an extra evidence that they were married. A religious Jew would never allow a woman even to touch him in private. Let alone to massage and kiss his feet in public. If its not the way I see it as a Jew, there is contradiction or the Hellenists who wrote the gospels were
absolutely unaware of Jewish culture.

You don't need to worry that I would think you malicious.

It seems like all of your evidence is 'Extra', meaning circumstantial. It would be convenient to prove that Jesus married, but so far you've only asserted it. It might not be appropriate for a religious Jew to allow a woman to touch his feet, but it would also not be appropriate for Jesus to talk with that woman at the well (an event which you dismissed as fiction). Jesus did inappropriate things which you dismiss as fictional unless to you they suggest that he was married. You dismiss everything that does not support your position, but at the same time you presume to systematically prove things from the remaining text.

The case of the samaritan woman at the well of Jacob sounds too parabolic to be reported of Jesus. He would not be caught dead with a samaritan woman.

The evidences are just too shouting. Besides, if you read Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus came to fulfill all the commandments down to the letter. The first commandment given by the Almighty was to get married, to grow and multiply. At least to get married if one could not have children for some reason. If Jesus never got married, he missed that commandment and failed in his mission on earth.

You mean the evidences which you haven't dismissed as fiction? If the story about the Samaritan woman is fiction (due to its being inappropriate) then so should the part about Mary touching his feet, but to you this shouts that he must have been married to Mary. You keep the parts that fit your story but throw out other parts. Then you forget everything but what you wanted to prove. If I am a fundamentalist Bible student, this is how your argument will come across to me.

Besides, if you read Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus came to fulfill all the commandments down to the letter. The first commandment given by the Almighty was to get married, to grow and multiply. At least to get married if one could not have children for some reason. If Jesus never got married, he missed that commandment and failed in his mission on earth.

By the methods of Rashi and others many Jewish people feel the text implies childbearing to be a commandment, but Jesus may not have agreed with this interpretation. I wouldn't know. I notice however that at the time Jesus was alive the land was already populated. It was 'Full', and not only that it had no legitimate king and was politically suppressed. Besides, given the knowledge that he was definitely going to die, would Jesus have been justified in producing orphans? The problem with orphans is that they often don't get the parenting that they need and deserve, so purposely causing orphans seems questionable.

yes - the phrase ben adam is still used in hebrew just as it was back in the day, to mean a man or a human; in the context of jesus' time, it would probably have been more likely to have have more colloquial connotations like referring to yourself as "muggins here". i find it a bit odd that people read all these religious connotations into it, when it's not much more than referring to someone as "that jesus bloke".

Ironically we have some people named 'Adam Benson'.

i would agree with this. more to the point, "feet" could be a euphemism. urine is referred to in the Mishnah (C1-2) as "leg-water" and "sitting" and "laughing" are often considered to be euphemisms for sex. it is entirely possible that the significance of this is lost on a hellenised audience.

Ok, but I have to think about that. If everybody who read Matthew had to read the Mishna we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[seattlegal]

i would agree with this. more to the point, "feet" could be a euphemism.

Oh, you mean like in Ruth chapter 3?

3 Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, shouldn’t I find security for you, so that you will be taken care of? 2 Now isn’t Boaz our relative? Haven’t you been working with his female servants? This evening he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. 3 Wash, put on perfumed oil, and wear your best clothes. Go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let the man know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 When he lies down, notice the place where he’s lying, go in and uncover his feet, and lie down. Then he will explain to you what you should do....”
​

 

[bananabrain]

precisely. "uncover his feet"? coo-ur gosh.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[wil]

and I thought feet were for under-standing

 

[Dream]

Its not unreasonable to think he may have gotten married when I consider your attestations, Ben, since to you it seems obvious. I'm not discounting that, because it makes a strong statement as you are familiar with marriage customs. I'm not.

That passage Ruth 3:3 also mentions perfumed oil; so there is both perfumed oil present in both stories and a woman-foot interaction. I should add that there are indications that Jesus disciples were the ones who poured wine for the wedding in Cana, since John 2:5 says it caused them to believe in Jesus. If it caused them to believe, then they must have seen it and probably poured it themselves. If they were pouring the wine, and his mom was in charge then it does make you wonder who was getting married. (It may have been his brother.)

 

[seattlegal]

Its not unreasonable to think he may have gotten married when I consider your attestations, Ben, since to you it seems obvious. I'm not discounting that, because it makes a strong statement as you are familiar with marriage customs. I'm not.

That passage Ruth 3:3 also mentions perfumed oil; so there is both perfumed oil present in both stories and a woman-foot interaction.

Boaz was a redeemer, as well.

I should add that there are indications that Jesus disciples were the ones who poured wine for the wedding in Cana, since John 2:5 says it caused them to believe in Jesus. If it caused them to believe, then they must have seen it and probably poured it themselves. If they were pouring the wine, and his mom was in charge then it does make you wonder who was getting married. (It may have been his brother.)

Or one of his sisters. (Mark 6:3)

 

[bananabrain]

Boaz was a redeemer, as well.

in fact, the davidic line of the monarchy descends directly from boaz and ruth's son, so for those people who believe the geneaology in the NT, it's also important for jesus. interesting, when you think about it, ruth being a moabite...

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

a point i have made a number of times - it is not a capital punishment under jewish law and, in any case, as i have also pointed out, it was virtually impossible to get a conviction in a capital case unless the entire court was bent - the sanhedrin procedure described in the gospels certainly does not meet the required standard for the halakhah.


yes - the phrase ben adam is still used in hebrew just as it was back in the day, to mean a man or a human; in the context of jesus' time, it would probably have been more likely to have have more colloquial connotations like referring to yourself as "muggins here". i find it a bit odd that people read all these religious connotations into it, when it's not much more than referring to someone as "that jesus bloke".


eh? what? now hang on a second. where does it say that you have to be married to be a rabbi? i know plenty of unmarried rabbis - as orthodox as you like, if you prefer. i want a proper jewish source if you're going to claim something like that. if you're maintaining that it would have been odd for *anyone* male and over the age of about 16 to be *unmarried*, however, then i would entirely agree with you. so, in my view, it's extremely likely that jesus was married (and probably to mary magdalene, because nobody has pointed out any other candidates) because that would have otherwise have "caused much comment", particularly as he seemed to spend so much time hanging out with her, at a time when casual fraternisation between the sexes was somewhat frowned upon.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Othodox Rabbis! Any Orthodox man with a beard and teaching some children is looked at as a Rabbi. A real Rabbi from University Yeshivah will never climb higher than a junior Rabbi if he is not a married man. Jesus, although married at age 30, never became a senior Rabbi, probably for having been a single man up to that age. I don't know about it in the Diaspora, but here in Israel, I have never met a unmarried senior Rabbi.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

If the story about the Samaritan woman is fiction (due to its being inappropriate) then so should the part about Mary touching his feet, but to you this shouts that he must have been married to Mary.

Dream, here are two more reasons IMHO, why that conversation between Jesus and the samaritan woman never happened: First, it would be a contradiction bordering on hypocrisy that Jesus would forbid his disciples to even enter a Samaritan town with the gospel and goes himself to have a nice talk with a Samaritan woman. The second reason is that this text was written in Greek. When the woman said, "I know that there is a Messiah coming." The word here for Messiah would be "Christ." Only about 40 years later, Paul would appear preaching about Jesus as Christ the Messiah. (Acts 11:26) What did that Samaritan woman know about a coming Christ? See what I mean?

Besides, given the knowledge that he was definitely going to die, would Jesus have been justified in producing orphans? The problem with orphans is that they often don't get the parenting that they need and deserve, so purposely causing orphans seems questionable.

Nobody knows when one is definitely going to die. And a commandment is not set aside because a Jew is about to die. Jesus was a Jew.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Its not unreasonable to think he may have gotten married when I consider your attestations, Ben, since to you it seems obvious. I'm not discounting that, because it makes a strong statement as you are familiar with marriage customs. I'm not.

That passage Ruth 3:3 also mentions perfumed oil; so there is both perfumed oil present in both stories and a woman-foot interaction. I should add that there are indications that Jesus disciples were the ones who poured wine for the wedding in Cana, since John 2:5 says it caused them to believe in Jesus. If it caused them to believe, then they must have seen it and probably poured it themselves. If they were pouring the wine, and his mom was in charge then it does make you wonder who was getting married. (It may have been his brother.)

If Jesus' brother and not himself was the one being married that day, why Jesus and not his brother was the one who had to provide the wine? Dream, I am a live witness of that custom, as I married a very religious Yemanite lady, the daughter of an old fashioned Rabbi here in Gedera, who did not miss to remind me of that custom. And happy to abide by the tradition, I had to provide the wine for the guests to our wedding. Not that they could not afford. TRADITION!!! The problem is that I had to come up with the money. I could not turn the water into wine.
Ben

 

[iBrian]

THE WEDDING OF JESUS

Now, please, hold on unto the stones, and no throwing at least until you hear what I have to say. Besides, that's not my final word. I am still researching the matter. I am partially submitting this topic for some second thoughts to make sure it remains no doubt in my mind.

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7; Luke 7:37-39; John 1:38; 3:2; 20:16. In many other instances he was addressed as Master which means the same. The point is that a Rabbi in Israel, then and today, had to be a married man or about to get married. Otherwise, he could not be "ordained" as such.

According to Judaism, after the proper procedure, the Jewish prospect would undergo the ceremonial "mikveh" or immersion in waters and, if not married yet, to take care of that before "ordination."

After Jesus' immersion in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, aka, Yohonan the Immerser, Jesus was seen during the next two days recruiting his disciples and on his way to Galilee. (John 1:35,43) Then on the third day after his mikveh, the family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene. Wait! Put down the stones! I'll explain.

First of all, and according to the custom, usually the mother of the Bride would be in charge of the celebrations, but probably Mary's parents had passed away because she used to live with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus in Bethany. I mean, they used to live with Mary who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a maiden servant, and Lazarus... well, I think he was a loafer boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick man anyway.

Okay, but back to the wedding, Jesus' mother Mary had to do the host job; and she did it quite well, by giving orders around to the servants. Also, according to the custom, the Bridegroom was in charge to provide the guests, especially with the wine, which Jesus, mind you, made sure it was of the best quality.

The tale of the miracle was interpolated much later to deviate the probing attention of those who have a mind of their own from finding out what was really going on in Canah.

After Jesus' wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus' come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene. It must have been a very spacious and beautiful home since Mary had the means to maintain it. Mind you that she would also take the tab for the expenses of Jesus' group of the Twelve, along with some other women of course who would pitch in from time to time. (Luke 8:2,3)

Whenever Jesus would return from his missionary campains throughout Israel, the address was Bethany. To his wife, obviously, although most the time Mary Magdalene would follow Jesus as his beloved disciple; but never like one of the Twelve.

The Church later interpolated John as the "beloved disciple" for the same reason to get the mind of the readers away from the thought that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. But it's not helping because the evidences are just too shouting.

Do we have any hint to pick up as evidence for any romantic approach prior or after their wedding? Of course, we do! After Jesus exorcized seven demons from Mary, she must have fallen in love with him. (Luke 8:1-3) The expression seven demons means only the struggle Jesus had to go through to extricate Mary from her not-so-reputable business in Magdala.

Then, in Bethany - where else? - when Mary was smearing Jesus' body with that expensive pefume, we all know, although we forbid ourselves to think about, that Mary did not just throw that perfume at him from afar. Definitely not! she did smear him almost all over even in terms of massage, so much so that some of the guests thought it to be unbecoming of Jesus to allow such a display. (Mat. 26:10-13; Luke 7:37-39)

Then, while everyone else would address Jesus as Rabbi, even his friend Nicodemus, (John 3:1,2) Mary would call him "Rabboni," a colloquial term used as an expression of love, especially by a Rabbi's wife. It also means "Master of my suffering," as Rachel named her son Benoni before she died from child birth. (Gen. 35:18) Jesus was the master of Mary's predicament especially with regards to the changing of her life style.

In another occasion, when Mary went to the tomb area after the crucifixion, and saw the empty tomb, she never suffered more in her life. She wanted to take him away with her. (John 20:15) Then, she was crying without consolation. In the middle of her travails, she saw a man standing by and took him as the Gardener. "Why are you crying?" the man asked. Of course, Jesus knew why, but he wanted to enjoy the answer from his beloved. Alas! She did not identify him; it was too dark. But then Jesus tried her name the way he used to call her: "Mary...!" It's hard to say it in writing, but Mary melted all down and exclaimed" "Raboni!"

This term "Raboni", or Master of my sufferings, is such a solemn and love-tender expression in Hebrew and Aramaic that only seldom it is used out of the frame of deep love. It was then that she jumped to hug him but Jesus, probably all in bandages, forbade her to cause him any unnecessary pain. He would meet her later at more propitious circumstances. (John 20:17)

Then, after some apparitions to the disciples, Jesus said goodbye and left his company. From then on, the names of these three peoples were never mentioned again; Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus yes, but only in connection with his teachings by the Nazarenes, a Jewish Sect organized by his Apostles. Joseph had to go along because if he had stayed, he would probably be crucified for having cheated on Pilate regarding Jesus who was not dead when he took him off the cross.

Today, there are three speculations about their whereabouts. The first is that they settled down incognito in Talpiot, a small town not too far south of Jerusalem, where some people have claimed to have found out the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Joseph. I went there personally but just to be told that the area could not be explored or visited by order of the local Meier for being under an Apartment building.

The second speculation is that they left Israel in the direction of Cashmere, India, where a Russian Archaeologist had found the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Joseph under the sign of the shield of David.

And the third speculation is the one of the Da Vinci Code, that the three went to Europe and settled down in the Southern part of France in a small village. And that Mary gave birth to a daughter, who eventually got married into the Merovingian nobility.

Whatever happened after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples, I don't endorse anything that has been speculated. My point is only to verify the truth about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. If that's true without the shadow of a doubt, we have only to be joyful that Jesus fulfilled also the commandment to get married and father children. Besides, a married man only adds to his honour for being so. Why deny Jesus the pleasure of being a man by experiencing the love of a woman? Obviously, right?

Okay, now you can throw the stones. Nu! I am ready! Hello! Where is everybody? Hellooo! Well, I guess they all left. They must have got the idea that they all have feelings too.
Ben

1. Regarding the wine, I read somewhere a suggestion that the wedding may not have been regarded as properly Jewish, and therefore it was deemed that wine should not be served, only water. The "water into wine" was therefore interpreted as Jesus taking spiritual authority over the matter as a Rabbi, declaring it as acceptably Jewish, and therefore that wine was, indeed allowed. Something this became badly interpreted as a "miraculous transformation" rather thna a point of Jewish law.

2. The big problem in treating the resurrection historically is that it did not appear in the original Mark, and instead is appended in later manuscripts. The suggestion is therefore that there was no resurrection aspect in the earliest tradition around Jesus, and that this was built upon later on. The Hellenistic overtones suggest a potential mythological synergy, perhaps to attribute "divine powers" to Jesus as was common in the day for anyone regarded as "great", only for it to run away with itself as a symbol.

 

[Amergin]

There's no reason why this particular person should have survived, and the resurrection is a miracle not a medical trick. I don't know if you've heard of it, but before removing him from the cross they stabbed him with a spear, and water mixed with blood came from the wound.

Those crucified were hanging by the arms. Abdominal structures were pulling down with gravity preventing effective pulmonary (Lung) expulsion of air. There was congestive heart failure. Roman soldiers do not see CHF. Fluid accumulates in the legs and in the ABDOMEN. This stretches of peritoneum, liver, and spleen. The fluid is proteinaceous and blood seeps from the abdominal organs. The fluid is called ascites. It is usually a mix of proteinaceous fluid and blood. In addition, when the soldier shoved a spear into the abdomen, the spear further lacerates the Liver or Spleen, which are lower than normal. That adds more blood. Leakage of a bloody and watery fluid (Serosanguinous) ascites does not necessarily mean death. It is a combination of CHF, ascitic fluid, blood from stretched organs, and more depending on the spear thrust. If the spear was on the right it hit the liver, if on the left it hit the spleen (which is full of blood.)

The only way he could have faked his own death is if Pilot ordered the centurion to pretend to kill him.

Romans were good executioners. They left bodies on the cross for days. The unusual deviation in protocol involving ending the crucifixion in only a couple of hours (before sunset) suggests Pilate may have staged it.

It does not matter, however, if he survived or not.

It does matter. If Jesus did not die on the cross, he could not have resurrected from death. Without resurrection, Christianity as we know it could not have been invented.

Jesus did miracles both before and after his crucifixion

We have no evidence that Jesus did any miracles. Events are hearsay from stories told and retold and a century or so later, recorded by Hellenistic Jews and/or Greeks. Exorcism of demons sounds more like praying over an epileptic person. The seizure usually lasts minutes and rarely longer. It ends and the "demonic" gets quiet. Pre-scientific tribal people would think it was a miracle.

Raising the dead is unproven. Many people have been pronounced dead, only to awaken in the coffin underground. An English cemetery was moved for building. Coffins were examined. 25% showed dried blood scratches on the inner side of the coffin lid. Even today, people mistaken for dead, awake screaming in the morgue. Roman soldiers were not physicians. Lazarus may have been in transient coma, a catatonic state, or post-ictal (seizure induced) state. It puts more water on the fire of superstitious explanations.

and the centurion who killed him was impressed by both the manner of his death and the various miracles that occurred. Jesus faithfully accepted his death as a martyr and refused to answer Pilot's questions.

We do not know that. It is not specified in the Gospels and is the content of legendary stories passed on.

I'm sure the next theory to come up assumes that Jesus must have been sleeping with Pilot's wife. That would explain everything!

All we know is that Pilate's Provincial log mentions no Jesus or Yeshua who was crucified for insurrection or royal claimant. Did Jesus even exist? The Romans did not consider him significant enough to mention. The vast majority of contemporary Jews did not believe in the divinity of Jesus or his resurrection. Most converts and believers in the story were European, Near Eastern, and North African non-Jewish Pagans.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

Now, please, hold on unto the stones, and no throwing at least until you hear what I have to say...

OK.

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7; Luke 7:37-39; John 1:38; 3:2; 20:16.

Matthew refers to the scribes and Pharisees, not Jesus.
Luke makes no mention of the title, and indeed from the text the host took Jesus for a prophet, not a rabbi.
John 1:38 actually qualifies the term: '(which is to say, Master)', to signify its general honorific usage rather than its particular meaning in Jewish ecclesiology.

Likewise John 3:2 does use the term, but again I would suggest as an honorific in context of the rest of the statement 'we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him', obviously not the case worth every rabbi.

And again John 20:16 the term is qualified again.

So, two of your references are erroneous, the term rabbi not being applied to Jesus, and the other two ignore the context in which the term is set, the author specifically making the point that Jesus is not a rabbi.

So no stones, but a 'tut-tut' from a peer-review pov.

Then on the third day after his mikveh, the family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene... Wait! Put down the stones! I'll explain.

Don't have to. All the rest is the product of your imagination.

There's no reference of Mary Magdalene at Cana at all, and she does not enter the story until a lot later, towards the end of Christ's ministry, not the beginning.

Mary the mother of Jesus is not the same Mary who is sister to Martha, indeed there's a stronger argument for M. Magdalene to be the sister of Martha, but then scholarship tends to reject that also.

I mean, they used to live with Mary who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a maiden servant, and Lazarus... well, I think he was a loafer boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick man anyway.

You're into fictionalising again ...

After Jesus' wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus' come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene.

I did check, and nothing adds up. Nothing links Magdalene to Bethany; it's generally agreed that Capernaum was Jesus' base of operations — in fact I'm sure you made this point in another another post!

Whenever Jesus would return from his missionary campains throughout Israel, the address was Bethany.

Nope.

The Church later interpolated John as the "beloved disciple" for the same reason to get the mind of the readers away from the thought that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

The thing to do is line up all the contenders for 'beloved disciple' and then see who ticks most of the boxes. John does, Mary does some, but not enough, then so does John-Mark ... and so on. The number of contenders for the position should tell anyone that there's room to doubt, so your thesis is as uncertain as any other, but seem to depend on the power of your imagination rather than any actual evidence.

But it's not helping because the evidences are just too shouting.

Nah ...

And I find your idea of Mary's failure to recognise her husband in the garden, after all the crap he's been through, more fantastic that the resurrection! I mean, what game is he playing? I've just survived the most horrific ordeal, here comes my faithful wife and, I know, I'll pretend to be someone else! I mean, there's no hurry is there? It's not as if I'm in pain, or bleeding to death, or liable to be strangled by the guards, who appear to have nipped off for a *** and might be back any minute now ...

That's more unlikely than my version!

From then on, the names of these three peoples were never mentioned again

No, and nor was Mary and Martha and Lazarus, nor Nicodemus, nor Pilate ... hey, perhaps they all went on a cruise together! Or set up a commune in the hills ...

My point is only to verify the truth about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene.

Then that's a big fail.

Nice fiction though ... seriously, I'd write it!

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Sam Albion]

yes, it's a bloody good yarn. Maybe you could pretend this story was channelled to you, via secret masters? You'd make a killing on the Guru-circuit! Book tours, a neat little lecture tour... the possibilities are endless.

On a more serious note... why would it matter if Jesus was married , or not? Does that make his message different? I'm not an intellectual, as you can probably tell, yet I don't understand why it would matter? Maybe, on a primative level, it would matter -- his Holy seed, possible decendants, yada yada, and yes, maybe, today it might matter -- women bishops, et cetera, catholic female priests, et cetera, but, beyond that... how would christianity change? Would all christians become Jews by default? Would Catholics allow their priests to marry? Endless questions, posts like this bring... and you might have even inspired me to go and have a lookie-see at my NT. Thanks for that (I think).

 

[taijasi]

Learn a little respect, dear Francis. Your favorite pasttime of turning your sordid past into punching dolls (a lovely little straw man technique which you are picking up quite well from Thomas, when it comes to the forum), psychologically projecting onto them and knocking it all down for your own amusement ... is quite unbecoming of a lady. It also has another name, as it is commonly practiced by the unscrupulous.

Oh, lady? Hmm, that isn't quite what I find myself picturing. But then, I suppose I do tend to envision a prettier picture at times ... than exists. Here I haven't your sthula in mind whatsoever, fwiw. Vaishnava or otherwise, Christ once said (for the benefit of every devotee), what comes out of your mouth is what makes you pure (or not).

And btw, Let Thomas fight his own battles ... and learn from his mistakes. That way, you'll also learn from yours, w/o excess burden. If you *must* follow him around a-waiting, try taking the high road more often ...

... as at least this is his practice when he can manage it.

But the two of you together, teamed up against Truth? Oh dear oh dear. What a whirlwind!

Too bad you didn't listen when your guru, or the Easterners, gave you lessons on KARMA. Remember, what GOES around, COMES around.

If all of this applies to ME, let's see who can turn, and look the other way FIRST (and last, if need be).

~andrew

 

[Sam Albion]

My "favourite pastime, turning my sordid past into punching dolls"

--Does this even make sense, lad? Maybe it does, to you. You are, after all, a Theosophist, and lots of nonsensical stuff seems relevant to you.

For the record, my past isn't sordid, and shucks, even if it was, what relevance does this have? It's just your way of trying to make me feel little -- that's transferance, mate, isn't it?

And, again for the record, I don't punch dolls. I prefer to punch clowns.

(It's a Liverpudlian thing. It'll take a while for you to fully appreciate that esoteric concept... I'll wait...)

"a straw man technique"...

Are you sure that you and Andrew X are not one and the same? I'm sure that Interfaith has a rule about that -- I didn't think you were allowed to log in as two people. I mean, what kind of person does that? That's sad. Sad to the power of ten, at least.

But, well, I suppose at least someone has to agree with you, hey?

As for being a lady... I suppose you'd know more about that than me, frottaging with your not-so-secret Doctrine. I'm no lady. I'm just a commoner, and quite proud to be one, too. As for my form... I'm six foot tall and 13 stone, I wear a size 12 UK, and, at 40-31-40, have a lovely hour glass figure, abs you can cut cheese on, if you have a mind to, below a rack you can rest pints of Guinness on. I'm also Blonde, and I have blue eyes and freckles.

If you want to envisage me, at least get it right.

As for... what comes from your heart making you pure. I suppose that would be blood. After all, that's all that's coming and going in my heart. And, well, as far as blood goes, I'm very pure. Austrian-pure. And probably a damn sight purer than you.

(I know that makes your Nazi-glands secrete. And I know you want to touch yourself now. Don't let me stop you)...

You say, here "let Thomas fight his own battles".

There's a lovely word that applies here, Tajasi/Andrew X; it's "hypocrisy".

Have you heard of that? No? Ah well. Google it, lad, for pity's sake, before you make yourself look even more of a whiney lil dick swinger than you do now.

As for taking the high road -- I'm leaving that to you and the Theosophists. After all, the air is pretty thin up there and, by the looks of it, you're all suffering from some kind of cerebral hypoxia. That's never a good look on a woman. Especially not when you've got such a fine, Aryan ass as I have....

 

[taijasi]

My opening line above has to do with what's going on each time you make a jab at Theosophists ... or me. I am the scapegoat, glad to receive the focus when all those of Theosophical ilk aren't good enough. Each thrust, as it happens, is something we aren't happy about within ourself ... a scowl in the mirror, a need to demonize. Yes, it's a reach, but not quite as far as you think.

Here's one for you, Francis. Off-topic enough that I won't be checking back for your oh-so-anticipated reply anyway (strictly rhetorical):

Why do they call them headshrinks?

Ever consider that one?

~Namaskar~
Janus~Taijasi

 

[Ben Masada]

1. Regarding the wine, I read somewhere a suggestion that the wedding may not have been regarded as properly Jewish, and therefore it was deemed that wine should not be served, only water. The "water into wine" was therefore interpreted as Jesus taking spiritual authority over the matter as a Rabbi, declaring it as acceptably Jewish, and therefore that wine was, indeed allowed. Something this became badly interpreted as a "miraculous transformation" rather thna a point of Jewish law.

2. The big problem in treating the resurrection historically is that it did not appear in the original Mark, and instead is appended in later manuscripts. The suggestion is therefore that there was no resurrection aspect in the earliest tradition around Jesus, and that this was built upon later on. The Hellenistic overtones suggest a potential mythological synergy, perhaps to attribute "divine powers" to Jesus as was common in the day for anyone regarded as "great", only for it to run away with itself as a symbol.

1. Regarding the wine, the opposite is rather true. Jews do no celebrate anything without some wine to cheer every one up.

2. As a matter of fact, there was indeed no resurrection aspect in the earliest tradition about Jesus. Otherwise, the Apostles would not have taken the report by the women about Jesus' resurrection as an idle tale of nonsense. (Luke 24:11)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

OK.

Matthew refers to the scribes and Pharisees, not Jesus.
Luke makes no mention of the title, and indeed from the text the host took Jesus for a prophet, not a rabbi.

Matthew refers to the respect due to religious leaders.

John 1:38 actually qualifies the term: '(which is to say, Master)', to signify its general honorific usage rather than its particular meaning in Jewish ecclesiology.

Master, Rabbi or Pharisee enjoyed the same respectful position in Judaism.

So, two of your references are erroneous, the term rabbi not being applied to Jesus, and the other two ignore the context in which the term is set, the author specifically making the point that Jesus is not a rabbi.

What you are conveying to me is that Nicodemus was a liar to call Jesus a Rabbi, since he was not one, as you dispute above. (John 3:1,2)

Don't have to. All the rest is the product of your imagination.

Based on logical evidences that you cannot refute.

There's no reference of Mary Magdalene at Cana at all, and she does not enter the story until a lot later, towards the end of Christ's ministry, not the beginning.

That's strong evidence for the Jewish custom about women of religious Jews. In some cases, women are never even mentioned.

Mary the mother of Jesus is not the same Mary who is sister to Martha, indeed there's a stronger argument for M. Magdalene to be the sister of Martha, but then scholarship tends to reject that also.

Who said that the mother of Jesus was the same Mary, sister of Martha? Read the thread again. I say nothing of the sort.

You're into fictionalising again ...

No, I am not. I am intelligently speculating on logical evidences.

I did check, and nothing adds up. Nothing links Magdalene to Bethany; it's generally agreed that Capernaum was Jesus' base of operations — in fact I'm sure you made this point in another another post!

I am posting a thread under the title, "Was Mary M. the same as Mary B.?" You might want to check it up.

The thing to do is line up all the contenders for 'beloved disciple' and then see who ticks most of the boxes. John does, Mary does some, but not enough, then so does John-Mark ... and so on. The number of contenders for the position should tell anyone that there's room to doubt, so your thesis is as uncertain as any other, but seem to depend on the power of your imagination rather than any actual evidence.

If you believe that, of 12 male disciples, one had been chosen by Jesus to be his beloved one, sorry, but my opinion is that you are implying that Jesus was a homosexual. That's terrible even for me to think about.

And I find your idea of Mary's failure to recognise her husband in the garden, after all the crap he's been through, more fantastic that the resurrection! I mean, what game is he playing? I've just survived the most horrific ordeal, here comes my faithful wife and, I know, I'll pretend to be someone else! I mean, there's no hurry is there? It's not as if I'm in pain, or bleeding to death, or liable to be strangled by the guards, who appear to have nipped off for a *** and might be back any minute now.

It was dark, for heaven's sake, read John 20:1. And if Jesus was playing some kind of game, ask the gospel. The whole thing seems to be a game of contradictions anyway.

That's more unlikely than my version!

Do you have one? What you have presented me with is an attempt to refute my version but without success.

No, and nor was Mary and Martha and Lazarus, nor Nicodemus, nor Pilate ... hey, perhaps they all went on a cruise together! Or set up a commune in the hills ...

Do you know something? There was no Lazarus at all. The truth about the whole thing was given in a parable. Otherwise, how to explain the contradiction that one can never return from the realm of death? (Job 10:21; 2 Sam. 12:23) And how to explain that he died twice?

Nice fiction though ... seriously, I'd write it!

Speculated from a fiction too.

Ben