The Wedding of Jesus

[Ben Masada]

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

 

[Amergin]

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

Sorry Ben, no stones from me. Your essay was quite interesting. It tends to coincide with much of the new information I have heard on TV documentaries and the archaeology of the Naked Archaeologist. It makes sense.

I made several observations. What is a Beloved Apostle? Did Jesus not love the other 11 apostles? Why did he love only one apostle who was a man unless Jesus was Gay? Mary Magdalene fits with the banned gospels especially hers. This would fit with your information. Jesus after supposedly leaving his tomb met Mary Magdalene. He said (rough quote) "I will ascend to my God and My Father, to your (Mary's) God and your Father." Jesus was telling us that he and Mary were religious equals, with the same shared God and Father-God.

Peter may have opposed a woman as head of the Jesus Movement. He spread lies about her. His cronies marked her as a hoar while she was from a wealthy family. Jesus loved her more than the 12 male apostles. Marriage fits better with Jesus and Mary Magdalene than Jesus and John in a gay marriage. Whether Mary carried the offspring of Jesus in her womb is unproven. It could be a reason for her traversing North Africa to escape Peter's thugs. James who was the brother of Jesus wanted to preserve Jesus' teachings and thus clashed with Peter. James mysteriously fell down some stone stairs and was killed. Accident or Assassination?

Peter succeeded in his "war against women" long before Rick Santorum. He lost out in competition with the more charismatic but afflicted Saul or Paul of Tarsus. The anti-woman theme was supported by Paul. The Roman Catholic Church has demeaned women ever since and Peter may have been the villain of the story.

Your information on the priesthood, and the Cana Wedding make more sense to me than just an excuse to do a magic trick and make wine. I appreciate your excellent presentation on this issue.

Slainte maith,

Amergin

 

[Servetus]

... 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 ...

You and Lawrence Gardner must be on the same wave-length. One night, I overspent my welcome at Barnes & Noble booksellers and read a chapter very much like this, in fact with the same, exact idea =====>here. Though there is plenty of speculation, naturally, there is also much of value to be had in this book. Eat the cherries and spit out the pits, as me granddad used to say. I recommend it, though with reservations. At any rate, it might contribute to your research project.


Serv

 

[Ben Masada]

Sorry Ben, no stones from me. Your essay was quite interesting. It tends to coincide with much of the new information I have heard on TV documentaries and the archaeology of the Naked Archaeologist. It makes sense.

I made several observations. What is a Beloved Apostle? Did Jesus not love the other 11 apostles? Why did he love only one apostle who was a man unless Jesus was Gay? Mary Magdalene fits with the banned gospels especially hers. This would fit with your information. Jesus after supposedly leaving his tomb met Mary Magdalene. He said (rough quote) "I will ascend to my God and My Father, to your (Mary's) God and your Father." Jesus was telling us that he and Mary were religious equals, with the same shared God and Father-God.

Peter may have opposed a woman as head of the Jesus Movement. He spread lies about her. His cronies marked her as a hoar while she was from a wealthy family. Jesus loved her more than the 12 male apostles. Marriage fits better with Jesus and Mary Magdalene than Jesus and John in a gay marriage. Whether Mary carried the offspring of Jesus in her womb is unproven. It could be a reason for her traversing North Africa to escape Peter's thugs. James who was the brother of Jesus wanted to preserve Jesus' teachings and thus clashed with Peter. James mysteriously fell down some stone stairs and was killed. Accident or Assassination?

Peter succeeded in his "war against women" long before Rick Santorum. He lost out in competition with the more charismatic but afflicted Saul or Paul of Tarsus. The anti-woman theme was supported by Paul. The Roman Catholic Church has demeaned women ever since and Peter may have been the villain of the story.

Your information on the priesthood, and the Cana Wedding make more sense to me than just an excuse to do a magic trick and make wine. I appreciate your excellent presentation on this issue.

Slainte maith,

Amergin

Amergin, I am not only surprised but even flattered with this post of yours above. However, you have left me with a gigantic question mark in my mind, as you speak of Peter as the bad guy who stood against almost all that women could represent, if I am not mistaken. Contrary to what you bring up about Peter in this post of yours, the NT conveys, that Peter was rather the only one of the Apostles of Jesus who had a wife. How could he ever be against women? Paul, yes, this not only never married but even promoted bachelorhood by wishing that all men were as he was; free of women, if we could live without them.(I Cor. 7:8)
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

You and Lawrence Gardner must be on the same wave-length. One night, I overspent my welcome at Barnes & Noble booksellers and read a chapter very much like this, in fact with the same, exact idea =====>here. Though there is plenty of speculation, naturally, there is also much of value to be had in this book. Eat the cherries and spit out the pits, as me granddad used to say. I recommend it, though with reservations. At any rate, it might contribute to your research project.


Serv

I have never read Lawrence Gardner. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

I have never read Lawrence Gardner. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

You are welcome. Another interesting chapter, apart from the Wedding, in what amounts to Gardner's conspiracy theory -though an interesting theory it is- is that which describes the possible herbal, medicinal means by which Jesus was resuscitated (back to life) rather than resurrected (from the dead) following his crucifixion.

Serv

 

[Amergin]

If Jesus was executed for posing as God (which he did not), he would have been stoned to death and his body hung on a tree as a warning to blasphemers or heretics. However, Jesus was supposedly crucified, which suggest he broke a Roman law. Rome officially tolerated all of the hundreds of religions in the Empire. They would not have crucified him for blasphemy against a local tribal god. The Romans crucified Jesus for a perceived claim to be King of Israel, a political crime. They said so in placing a sign above his head on the cross saying, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." It was clear he was crucified as a rebel pretender to the vacant throne of old Israel. Gospel writers went to a lot of trouble tracing the genealogy of Jesus back to King David. They would not do that to prove Jesus was a god but the rightful heir to the Israeli Throne.

The second issue is that executions in Roman territories were typically crucifixion if the crimes were political, insurrectionists, rebel leaders, or dissidents claiming a royal throne in a Roman occupied territory. Romans used Roman nails including two found in a tomb.

In cases of violations of religious law, local customs prevailed. In Roman occupied Israel, criminals who violated religious laws such as committing blasphemy, the penalty was being stoned to death. St. Steven was not crucified. He violated Judaic commandments by worshiping a human being (Jesus) as a new God. Steven was stoned to death.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

Re: The Controversial Death of Jesus

Jesus was crucified in the middle of the day or afternoon. He was taken down before sunset. It means his time on the cross may have been anywhere from one to five hours. Victims of crucifixion often lingered an agonising death on the cross for up to three days. Death in a couple of hours is fishy. So he was supposedly placed in a tomb/cave much like Mithra had been placed. If sundown was 7 PM, and he was in the tomb, at that time, then he spent 5 hours on Friday, 24 hours on Saturday, and 7 hours on Sunday when he walked out. That is 36 hours. Three days, or Three nights is misleading. The number three was picked because it is a magic number and applied to Jonah, Mithra, Apollonius, and most of the other virgin born god-man resurrecting redeemers.

If the couple hours on the cross produced hypoxia, and brain ischaemia, with acidosis so severe as to kill Jesus, how do we know he really died? He may have dropped his blood pressure so low or suffered cardiac arrest to lose consciousness. In this case his brain was getting no oxygen and no blood flow. He not only had anoxia. He had lack of blood perfusion with O2 and glucose. There was no venous blood removing CO2 and other toxins of metabolism. The build-up of neurotransmitter amines and glutamate plus the destruction of calcium channels in the neurons led to Calcium influx, potassium out flux, water permeation and cell swelling.

After a couple hours in this severe state the neuronal nuclei would break up. Mitochondria would burst and cease cellular metabolism. Swelling cells would rupture. In a few more hours his brain, axons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes would necrose. His capillary network would fragment with clots in the stasis of blood flow. Then the brain would turn into a semi-liquid mush. All fibre circuits would be erased. All memories, language functions, learned motor skills (walking), cognitive processing, emotional circuits, vision, hearing, and autonomic regulation. That rather multi-modal autonomic network would control temperature regulation, sweating, cardiac rate regulation, blood pressure control systems, sexual accessory sequence programmes, and the conscious on-off ARAS switch. All of this would have already been lost.

If Jesus truly died, the necrotic brain can produce no electrical saltatory transmission. No synapses would be left anyway. This is "Brain Death" which I am compelled to determine to my great sadness in patients about once per week. True Brain Death is observationally determined by:

1. Loss of pupillary reflexes,
2. Loss of reflexive eye movements (Doll's eyes and caloric reponses,)
3. Loss of corneal responses,
4. Absence of any spontaneous breathing trigger with measured hypoxia/hypercarbia,
5. Loss of patterned motor responses (flaccid paralysis),

Today we have the following:

6. Two Flat lined EEGs 24 hours apart, or non-flow on MRAngiography.
7. In the 24 hour period, blood tests showing zero sedative drug levels.
8. Then that is the final form of death, irreversible Brain Death/necrosis.

None have EVER recovered if the first five criteria are met, in multiple different studies. Since there are no shortages of people dying, the numbers in studies summated are 5 digits. Unfortunately the Gospel writers never mentioned the following:

No one noted a carotid, radial, or femoral pulse on Jesus.
No one noted pupillary reactions, (size, symmetry, light, and accommodation.)
No one noted his ocular motor reflexes (Doll’s Eye, Cold water calorics)
No one checked his patterned motor responses that may persist in some reversible comas.
No one recorded total flaccid paralysis, decerebrate or decorticate rigidity, myoclonus.
No one noted listening to his heart.
No one noted listening to his lungs with an ear or stethoscope.
No one noted presence or absence of corneal reflexes.
No one noted muscle tone.
Naturally no EEG was done. So we don’t know if he was flat-lined.

So we can’t say with certainty if he died…on the cross. Until very recent times and in many substandard medical care facilities, determinations of death or brain death prove to be incorrect when the patient awakens screaming in the Morgue. Did Jesus actually die based on the written narrative? We may never know. And if did not die, the rest of the story would be false. There could not have been a resurrection. And we would be celebrating Mithra’s birth on 25 Dec, Mithramas.

I personally am not sure whether Jesus died on the cross or of old age with Mary Magdalene and 24 grandchildren. I am not even sure Jesus was a real person or a blend of Mithra, Simon Bar Kochba, Honi, Hinori Ben Dosa, Apollo, Apollonius of Tiana, Lugh of Ireland, and a host of other Jewish and Gentile "saviours."

Amergin

 

[wil]

You and Lawrence Gardner must be on the same wave-length. One night, I overspent my welcome at Barnes & Noble booksellers and read a chapter very much like this, in fact with the same, exact idea =====>here. Though there is plenty of speculation, naturally, there is also much of value to be had in this book. Eat the cherries and spit out the pits, as me granddad used to say. I recommend it, though with reservations. At any rate, it might contribute to your research project.


Serv

And I've been thinking he's been reading Jack.... it would be interesting if Ben were to tell us what he has been reading and what is causing his recent turn of phrase and contemplations.

 

[Dream]

And I've been thinking he's been reading Jack.... it would be interesting if Ben were to tell us what he has been reading and what is causing his recent turn of phrase and contemplations.

Hey, Wil. What's up?

 

[Dream]

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.

There should be no stones thrown at you, because Jesus is called the 'Son of Man', not the 'Holy spirit'. You can talk against him and it will be forgiven, according to Matthew 12:32. It is only the 'Holy Spirit' you must not speak against, but I think you would not do that anyway. Actually it might be beneficial if somebody started talking about the holy spirit a little more. (If people in the Middle Ages had just understood the concept of Holy Spirit better, it might have been enough to prevent all of those persecutions you attribute to Paul.)

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.

Only a few of these verses appear relevant to your claim. John 20:16 (mary calling him Rabonni) 1:38 (disciples call him Rabboni), John 3:2 completely opposes what you are saying since it explains that he isn't a traditional rabbi at all. They consider him a teacher from God for the sake of his miracles, not because he fits the typical description. Also this is spoken to him by Nicodemus who is afraid to publicly recognize him. Why do you suppose Nicodemus is afraid to publicly recognize him as a rabbi? Maybe it is because he actually isn't married and is no rabbi in a traditional sense, having no master. This point is pressed to the fullest in Luke 2:47 where at the age of thirteen Jesus is a Biblical prodigy. As for the few times people call him 'Rabboni', it is again not the same thing as a traditional rabbi at all, and he teaches his own disciples "be not ye called Rabbi" Matthew 23:9
Jesus would be like someone was such a genius that he skipped medical school any other school he liked. In addition to being a genius he received the holy spirit during his baptism by John. He opposed the traditional discipleship scheme.

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.

One of the first things I asked about Jesus was why he never married. The question you might ask why he would have women in his service that were not his immediate family. Why was he not producing new Jewish babies? I don't know why. Perhaps he was trying to 'Fulfill' Isaiah 56:3-5 ? Other people might boast of their children, but he would be given a name greater than theirs. Perhaps if he had any physical offspring, then someone else could be greater than him.

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)

I like this meaning you give for the exorcism of 7 demons, which would have been very useful to know when I was a child in church services where demons were being exorcized right in front of me. The victim's body would writhe as they shouted and made faces, so I could tell that demons were coming out. If only someone could have explained to me then that it was a farce...but they did not. No one owed it to me, so I was not told and I actually was the victim having demons put into him through such a bizarre and cruel show. I was stupid and didn't realize the farce that was going on.

This thing about the smearing is your imposition alone, and you are apparently not willing to explain why you think it is implied by the text. Fine, you don't owe that; but don't expect me to believe you. Those two references have no bearing upon it. It says that she poured the stuff over his head, but the rest is whatever you've imagined is convenient to make you think he was married. You just tossed in a couple of 'References' expecting no one to check them?

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!"

Apparently you don't think its possible to live as a virgin, but it is. A virgin can do anything that anyone else can do, including help take care of children and speak tenderly to the opposite sex without a sexual thought occurring to themselves. Its also possible to make any woman (even someone you're attracted to) into a sister in your head. Its mind over matter. You can also train your mind to have sexual desire for almost any creature or thing. Millions of people live as brother and sister having no blood relation at all. There is more to people than sex.

I suppose you think Jesus had sex with all the women he spoke with, such as the Samaritan woman at the well? I guess you think he had sex with John the Beloved? I am just using the same reasoning that you have used. No doubt you suspect he had feelings for his own mother since he called her 'Dear woman'.

Whatever happened after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples, I don't endorse anything that but then proved to be a righteous man has been speculated.

It appears to me that you have speculated a lot, since you have not shown Jesus to be married and have merely asked us to assume it.

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?

Not if I am interpreting Isaiah 56:5 correctly. Jesus was a stranger, firstly to his own family, then to the establishment, then to the populace, hung upon a cross and also cursed but then proved to be a righteous man. His honor could not be increased by sons and daughters.

 

[Amergin]

Scriptural spin-doctors look at references to the "Beloved Disciple or Apostle" of Jesus. There are two problems. If John was the beloved apostle of Jesus, how did Jesus feel about the other male apostles? Did he not love (in the non-sexual way) the 11 male apostles?

Da Vinci hints at this paradox. The apostle on the right of Jesus at the Last Supper looks quite feminine. This is the only one without a beard or moustache. Jewish males nearly always had a full beard as a sign of masculinity. This is only a painting by Da Vinci; it suggests that this artist saw her as a woman. The only woman apostle was Mary Magdalene.

Referring to Mary as the "beloved apostle" would fit with the omission of friend-love for the 11 male apostles. The banned gospels suggest that Mary was truly the beloved of Jesus and likely his sexual lover or wife.

The mention of Jesus being strange or out of his mind seems to me in my humble opinion a possibility that Jesus was mentally unstable or schizophrenic with delusions and hallucinations. His mental condition could be the reason his family were upset with him.

Grandiosity such as believing he was sent by God (the father of all humans) to reform his religion. Schizophrenic patients and some Partial Complex Epileptics often experience this symptom. At the same time, the gospels show that Jesus never claimed to be God. That would be blasphemy. Jesus claimed God sent him/Jesus to carry out God’s plan for reform. He was a Son of God as was King David and many other Hebrew leaders.

The fact that the Jewish community largely ignored him further supports his non-divinity. Jesus admitted that he knew less than God did. He was doing God's work, NOT HIS OWN WORK. He admitted that he was not good but only God (a superior) was fully good.

I fail to understand why a literal interpretation of the Gospels (all of them) led to the blasphemous belief that Jesus was a God (secondary created) or part of a Trinity of Person-Gods. To me the New Testament is the most convincing evidence that Jesus was not divine.

Where does any document within 50 years of the alleged crucifixion not claim that Jesus was a god or THE GOD?

Amergin

 

[Dream]

If Jesus truly died, the necrotic brain can produce no electrical saltatory transmission. No synapses would be left anyway. This is "Brain Death" which I am compelled to determine to my great sadness in patients about once per week. True Brain Death is observationally determined by:

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. The only way he could have faked his own death is if Pilot ordered the centurion to pretend to kill him. It does not matter, however, if he survived or not. Jesus did miracles both before and after his crucifixion, 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.

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

 

[Ben Masada]

You are welcome. Another interesting chapter, apart from the Wedding, in what amounts to Gardner's conspiracy theory -though an interesting theory it is- is that which describes the possible herbal, medicinal means by which Jesus was resuscitated (back to life) rather than resurrected (from the dead) following his crucifixion.

Serv

I can't agree with you more with regards to that theory. I strongly believe that Jesus was rather resuscitated than resurrected. My position is based on the fact that when Joseph of Arimathea took him off the cross, he must have realized that Jesus was still alive. In order not to call unnecessary attention, he laid Jesus for an hour or two in his walk-in tomb and went away for help to remove Jesus to a safer place, where he could take care of his wounds with the help of Nicodemus, who had brought along about 100 pounds of medication for that purpose. (John 19:39)

Another evidence for this position is in the fact that, when Pilate was requested by Joseph to remove Jesus off the cross for burial, Pilate was wondering how he could have died so soon. (Mark 15:44) Hence, he summoned the centurion to inquire whether Jesus was already dead. Pilate was a man accustomed to crucify Jews. According to Josephus, it was not uncommon for crucifieds to linger on their crosses for up to three or four days, passing out and back till death would eventually catch up on them. Jesus had been removed from his cross after only a few hours.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

If Jesus was executed for posing as God (which he did not), he would have been stoned to death and his body hung on a tree as a warning to blasphemers or heretics. However, Jesus was supposedly crucified, which suggest he broke a Roman law. Rome officially tolerated all of the hundreds of religions in the Empire. They would not have crucified him for blasphemy against a local tribal god. The Romans crucified Jesus for a perceived claim to be King of Israel, a political crime. They said so in placing a sign above his head on the cross saying, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." It was clear he was crucified as a rebel pretender to the vacant throne of old Israel. Gospel writers went to a lot of trouble tracing the genealogy of Jesus back to King David. They would not do that to prove Jesus was a god but the rightful heir to the Israeli Throne.

The second issue is that executions in Roman territories were typically crucifixion if the crimes were political, insurrectionists, rebel leaders, or dissidents claiming a royal throne in a Roman occupied territory. Romans used Roman nails including two found in a tomb.

In cases of violations of religious law, local customs prevailed. In Roman occupied Israel, criminals who violated religious laws such as committing blasphemy, the penalty was being stoned to death. St. Steven was not crucified. He violated Judaic commandments by worshiping a human being (Jesus) as a new God. Steven was stoned to death.

Amergin

Wow, Amergin! What can I say? I can't agree with you more. Keep the good work.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Re: The Controversial Death of Jesus

Jesus was crucified in the middle of the day or afternoon. He was taken down before sunset. It means his time on the cross may have been anywhere from one to five hours. Victims of crucifixion often lingered an agonising death on the cross for up to three days. Death in a couple of hours is fishy. So he was supposedly placed in a tomb/cave much like Mithra had been placed. If sundown was 7 PM, and he was in the tomb, at that time, then he spent 5 hours on Friday, 24 hours on Saturday, and 7 hours on Sunday when he walked out. That is 36 hours. Three days, or Three nights is misleading. The number three was picked because it is a magic number and applied to Jonah, Mithra, Apollonius, and most of the other virgin born god-man resurrecting redeemers.

If the couple hours on the cross produced hypoxia, and brain ischaemia, with acidosis so severe as to kill Jesus, how do we know he really died? He may have dropped his blood pressure so low or suffered cardiac arrest to lose consciousness. In this case his brain was getting no oxygen and no blood flow. He not only had anoxia. He had lack of blood perfusion with O2 and glucose. There was no venous blood removing CO2 and other toxins of metabolism. The build-up of neurotransmitter amines and glutamate plus the destruction of calcium channels in the neurons led to Calcium influx, potassium out flux, water permeation and cell swelling.

After a couple hours in this severe state the neuronal nuclei would break up. Mitochondria would burst and cease cellular metabolism. Swelling cells would rupture. In a few more hours his brain, axons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes would necrose. His capillary network would fragment with clots in the stasis of blood flow. Then the brain would turn into a semi-liquid mush. All fibre circuits would be erased. All memories, language functions, learned motor skills (walking), cognitive processing, emotional circuits, vision, hearing, and autonomic regulation. That rather multi-modal autonomic network would control temperature regulation, sweating, cardiac rate regulation, blood pressure control systems, sexual accessory sequence programmes, and the conscious on-off ARAS switch. All of this would have already been lost.

If Jesus truly died, the necrotic brain can produce no electrical saltatory transmission. No synapses would be left anyway. This is "Brain Death" which I am compelled to determine to my great sadness in patients about once per week. True Brain Death is observationally determined by:

1. Loss of pupillary reflexes,
2. Loss of reflexive eye movements (Doll's eyes and caloric reponses,)
3. Loss of corneal responses,
4. Absence of any spontaneous breathing trigger with measured hypoxia/hypercarbia,
5. Loss of patterned motor responses (flaccid paralysis),

Today we have the following:

6. Two Flat lined EEGs 24 hours apart, or non-flow on MRAngiography.
7. In the 24 hour period, blood tests showing zero sedative drug levels.
8. Then that is the final form of death, irreversible Brain Death/necrosis.

None have EVER recovered if the first five criteria are met, in multiple different studies. Since there are no shortages of people dying, the numbers in studies summated are 5 digits. Unfortunately the Gospel writers never mentioned the following:

No one noted a carotid, radial, or femoral pulse on Jesus.
No one noted pupillary reactions, (size, symmetry, light, and accommodation.)
No one noted his ocular motor reflexes (Doll’s Eye, Cold water calorics)
No one checked his patterned motor responses that may persist in some reversible comas.
No one recorded total flaccid paralysis, decerebrate or decorticate rigidity, myoclonus.
No one noted listening to his heart.
No one noted listening to his lungs with an ear or stethoscope.
No one noted presence or absence of corneal reflexes.
No one noted muscle tone.
Naturally no EEG was done. So we don’t know if he was flat-lined.

So we can’t say with certainty if he died…on the cross. Until very recent times and in many substandard medical care facilities, determinations of death or brain death prove to be incorrect when the patient awakens screaming in the Morgue. Did Jesus actually die based on the written narrative? We may never know. And if did not die, the rest of the story would be false. There could not have been a resurrection. And we would be celebrating Mithra’s birth on 25 Dec, Mithramas.

I personally am not sure whether Jesus died on the cross or of old age with Mary Magdalene and 24 grandchildren. I am not even sure Jesus was a real person or a blend of Mithra, Simon Bar Kochba, Honi, Hinori Ben Dosa, Apollo, Apollonius of Tiana, Lugh of Ireland, and a host of other Jewish and Gentile "saviours."

Amergin

Dr. Amergin, thank you for such an enlightening post. I have learned a lot. The only thing I find relevant to add is that all the four gospels are of one accord, that when the tombstone was removed, the tomb was already empty. IMHO, it must have got opened after an hour or two of being laid to rest, which took Joseph of Arimathea to bring over his men to help remove Jesus' body somewhere else where he could mend Jesus' wounds and complete his resuscitation. Moreover, he counted with the help of another wealthy Pharisee, Nicodemus, who had brought along about 100 pounds of medication for that purpose. (John 19:49) Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had been Jesus' secret disciples of sort.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

And I've been thinking he's been reading Jack.... it would be interesting if Ben were to tell us what he has been reading and what is causing his recent turn of phrase and contemplations.

Nothing beyond the NT to deal with Christians in particular, and the whole of the Tanach to deal with all in general. I have never heard about this "Jack."
Ben

 

[wil]

Nothing beyond the NT to deal with Christians in particular, and the whole of the Tanach to deal with all in general. I have never heard about this "Jack."
Ben

funny, you've almost been quoting from Bishop John Shelby Spong's books....

 

[Ben Masada]

Only a few of these verses appear relevant to your claim. John 20:16 (mary calling him Rabonni) 1:38 (disciples call him Rabboni), John 3:2 completely opposes what you are saying since it explains that he isn't a traditional rabbi at all. They consider him a teacher from God for the sake of his miracles, not because he fits the typical description. Also this is spoken to him by Nicodemus who is afraid to publicly recognize him. Why do you suppose Nicodemus is afraid to publicly recognize him as a rabbi? Maybe it is because he actually isn't married and is no rabbi in a traditional sense, having no master. This point is pressed to the fullest in Luke 2:47 where at the age of thirteen Jesus is a Biblical prodigy. As for the few times people call him 'Rabboni', it is again not the same thing as a traditional rabbi at all, and he teaches his own disciples "be not ye called Rabbi" Matthew 23:9

The morphological meaning of Rabboni in Hebrew is "My dear Rev." Also, my respectful Rev. That's a simile to express respect or love added to a certain person through his or her name. And with regards to your question about Nicodemus, he was of Jesus, secret disciple. Jesus was too junior a Rabbi for Nicodemus to, publicly, sign his allegiance to him, considering that he - Nicodemus - was a senior Rabbi.

One of the first things I asked about Jesus was why he never married. The question you might ask why he would have women in his service that were not his immediate family. Why was he not producing new Jewish babies?

Why did it take almost their whole lifetime for Abraham to procuce Isaac with Sarah. This takes care of your question why there were no children between Jesus and Mary Magdalene during those three and a half years.

I like this meaning you give for the exorcism of 7 demons, which would have been very useful to know when I was a child in church services where demons were being exorcized right in front of me. The victim's body would writhe as they shouted and made faces, so I could tell that demons were coming out. If only someone could have explained to me then that it was a farce...but they did not. No one owed it to me, so I was not told and I actually was the victim having demons put into him through such a bizarre and cruel show. I was stupid and didn't realize the farce that was going on.

Jews do not believe in demons. The "7 demons" in Mary Magdalene is explained metaphorically by means of the difficulty to free Mary from the hardship to leave her unfortunate occupation as a famous courtesan.

This thing about the smearing is your imposition alone, and you are apparently not willing to explain why you think it is implied by the text. Fine, you don't owe that; but don't expect me to believe you. Those two references have no bearing upon it. It says that she poured the stuff over his head, but the rest is whatever you've imagined is convenient to make you think he was married. You just tossed in a couple of 'References' expecting no one to check them?

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.

I suppose you think Jesus had sex with all the women he spoke with, such as the Samaritan woman at the well? I guess you think he had sex with John the Beloved?

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. He would even instruct his disciples never to take the gospel to the Samaritans. Not even to enter a Samaritan town, was his warning.(Mat. 10:5) And for John, he was never considered to be Jesus' beloved disciple. It would imply some kind of private friendship and that would be tantamount to homosexuality. Jesus was married, for heaven's sake! The idea of John as the beloved disciple, as I bring up in the thread, was an interpolation by the Church to hide the truth that his beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene.

It appears to me that you have speculated a lot, since you have not shown Jesus to be married and have merely asked us to assume it.

There is no assumptions here. 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.

Not if I am interpreting Isaiah 56:5 correctly. Jesus was a stranger, firstly to his own family, then to the establishment, then to the populace, hung upon a cross and also cursed but then proved to be a righteous man. His honor could not be increased by sons and daughters.

Isaiah 56:5 has nothing to do with Jesus. That's for Gentiles. Besides, if Jesus was a stranger, who would so well care for his affairs after his crucifixion? Sea what I mean?

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Scriptural spin-doctors look at references to the "Beloved Disciple or Apostle" of Jesus. There are two problems. If John was the beloved apostle of Jesus, how did Jesus feel about the other male apostles? Did he not love (in the non-sexual way) the 11 male apostles?

Da Vinci hints at this paradox. The apostle on the right of Jesus at the Last Supper looks quite feminine. This is the only one without a beard or moustache. Jewish males nearly always had a full beard as a sign of masculinity. This is only a painting by Da Vinci; it suggests that this artist saw her as a woman. The only woman apostle was Mary Magdalene.

Referring to Mary as the "beloved apostle" would fit with the omission of friend-love for the 11 male apostles. The banned gospels suggest that Mary was truly the beloved of Jesus and likely his sexual lover or wife.

The mention of Jesus being strange or out of his mind seems to me in my humble opinion a possibility that Jesus was mentally unstable or schizophrenic with delusions and hallucinations. His mental condition could be the reason his family were upset with him.

Grandiosity such as believing he was sent by God (the father of all humans) to reform his religion. Schizophrenic patients and some Partial Complex Epileptics often experience this symptom. At the same time, the gospels show that Jesus never claimed to be God. That would be blasphemy. Jesus claimed God sent him/Jesus to carry out God’s plan for reform. He was a Son of God as was King David and many other Hebrew leaders.

The fact that the Jewish community largely ignored him further supports his non-divinity. Jesus admitted that he knew less than God did. He was doing God's work, NOT HIS OWN WORK. He admitted that he was not good but only God (a superior) was fully good.

I fail to understand why a literal interpretation of the Gospels (all of them) led to the blasphemous belief that Jesus was a God (secondary created) or part of a Trinity of Person-Gods. To me the New Testament is the most convincing evidence that Jesus was not divine.

Where does any document within 50 years of the alleged crucifixion not claim that Jesus was a god or THE GOD?

Amergin

Hey Amergin, just to enhance your testimony above, Jesus himself, when asked about the greatest of the commandments, he answered with the Shema. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is Lord alone." That's in Mark 12:29. In this answer of his, even as "Lord" he was forbidding his listeners to be addressed to.
Ben