Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Wedding of Jesus


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#46    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:54 PM

View PostB Jenkins, on 04 May 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

First of all, that woman wasn't specifically called a prostitute but an immoral woman. Second of all, Christians consider Jesus to be the High Priest and without sin. Thus, why I pointed out this important piece of Scripture to you:

13 He shall take a wife in her virginity. 14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people, Leviticus 21:13-14

This marriage of Jesus is just Da Vinci code baloney, pure speculation and media sensationalism, or is thi belief of yours taught in the Jewish Talmud?

The NAB version of the NT refers to that woman who anointed Jesus as a "woman of the street" known in town as a sinner. Nothing else would stick to a woman as a sinner than prostitution.  And this that Christians considered Jesus to be a priest is baloney because Christians did not exist until Paul showed up in scene about 30 years after Jesus had been gone when Christians started being Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:26) And Jesus could not be a priest because Joseph his father was of the Tribe of Judah. Only the Tribe of Levi produced priests. Therefore, no usefulness for Lev.21:13,14. And for the Talmud, I would avoid it if I were you. You could find in there that the father of Jesus was Panthera the Sidonian Roman soldier who raped Mary. But you don't need to go that far. Just read John 8:41 and you will have the Jews Jesus was arguing with charging Jesus with having been born out of fornication. The NAB version says  "...of elligitimate birth."


#47    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:11 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 04 May 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Quote

The four gospels are basicly the same story of Jesus , so which one would  the women Mary Magdalene at the cross likey be?

IMHO, they were all one and the same.

Quote

Matthew 15-39 And he sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.

Probably to visit his beloved Mary.

Quote

Mary Magdalene comes down to Galilee with Jesus

After they got married she would quite often follow Jesus almost everywhere.

Quote

Mark- Mary Magdalene- the one Jesus saved fron the seven demons

To be saved from "Seven demons" is a homonymous in Hebrew for a very hard case to save one from. It depicts the struggle Jesus went through to get Mary out of her business in Magdala.

Quote

So which women would she likey be in the order of  John?

They are all one and the same. Jesus could not have been that promiscuous. He needed to get married to officiate as a Rabbi.

Quote

The wedding.

For cultural reasons the name of the bride at the wedding in Cana was not mentioned. Perhaps even for preconceived notions.

Quote

Women at the well

If you are referring to the Samaritan woman, IMHO that was a parable. Jesus didn't like Samaritans. (Mat.10:5,6)

Quote

The women Jesus saves from stoning

Enogh evidences support the case as having been a parable.


#48    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:21 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 05 May 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

A virgin women had to stay in her father`s house until she was married, so if Jesus married a women in Cana the bride`s family would have to have been from there. Mary  Magdalene was from Magdala.

No, Mary was from Bethany. She was the sister of Martha and Lazarus. (John 11:1,2) In Magdala she had her business until she got married. IMHO  either Mary war orphan
or she had been rejected by her parents. More likely that her parents had been dead. Hence Mary the mother of Jesus was taking care of every thing in Cana. It was and still is very common for couples in Israel to get married at a different place other than their own birth place. My bride for instance was from Gedera, we got married in Rehovot and went to live in Ramat Gan where I bought a condor.


#49    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,473 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:26 AM

Ben, if the wedding at Cana was Jesus`s, the original gospels writers would have said the wedding was his, and why mention a wedding Jesus went to in the Bible canons it was meant to be covered up .I just don`t believe there is any real evidence that Jesus was married.


#50    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,473 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:49 AM

Also in Matthew, Mark and Luke all say Jesus`s family of Mother, Brothers and Sisters came to see him, nothing is mention of a wife.The only thing mention in John at that meeting was the Jews knew his parents and him as the son of Mary and Joesph.


#51    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:16 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 07 May 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

Ben, if the wedding at Cana was Jesus`s, the original gospels writers would have said the wedding was his, and why mention a wedding Jesus went to in the Bible canons it was meant to be covered up .I just don`t believe there is any real evidence that Jesus was married.

Such a gospel could have never gotten into the Christian canon about a man who was part of the Trinity and married with children on earth. Of course it had to be erased or Christianity would never have got off the floor. It would remain no more than a Greek cult of mythologies. If you just can't believe that Jesus could have been married, is there any statement to the effect that he was NOT married? No, there is not. Do you know why? Because to get married was a serious commandment. And there is nothing more important to a Jew than to get married. (Gen.2:24) For the Jewish People to get married or to be a married man is taken for granted. Gosh! If Jesus had not been married we would have more than several assersions to that effect.  Oh! There is another choice in your favor: To admit that Jesus was not Jewish. Do it and the issue is solved.


#52    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:21 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 08 May 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Also in Matthew, Mark and Luke all say Jesus`s family of Mother, Brothers and Sisters came to see him, nothing is mention of a wife.The only thing mention in John at that meeting was the Jews knew his parents and him as the son of Mary and Joesph.

That's the point about pious forgery to make Christianity possible as a Divinely inspired religion. The cleasing had to be done before executing the canonization of the NT.


#53    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,951 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 08 May 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 08 May 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

That's the point about pious forgery to make Christianity possible as a Divinely inspired religion. The cleasing had to be done before executing the canonization of the NT.

Come now Ben that is a load of BS, the same argument can easily (and without evidence) be thrown in the direction of the Old Testament, there is enough suspicion that it was tried and done at the end of the 1st century in Jabneh, in what is technically called the Council of Jahvneh. (Jamnia)

While evidence in relation to the closing of the Old Testament canon is wanting there is more than enough evidence of Jewish decision to alter certain aspects of Jewish teaching and traditions... especially concerning Jewish views on Binitarianism and a restructuring of Jewish views on anthropomorphism, which in Jewish views of the time were directly responsible for the rise of Christianity which posed a serious threat to the survival of Judaism as a religion.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#54    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:40 PM

View PostJor-el, on 08 May 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Come now Ben that is a load of BS, the same argument can easily (and without evidence) be thrown in the direction of the Old Testament, there is enough suspicion that it was tried and done at the end of the 1st century in Jabneh, in what is technically called the Council of Jahvneh. (Jamnia)

While evidence in relation to the closing of the Old Testament canon is wanting there is more than enough evidence of Jewish decision to alter certain aspects of Jewish teaching and traditions... especially concerning Jewish views on Binitarianism and a restructuring of Jewish views on anthropomorphism, which in Jewish views of the time were directly responsible for the rise of Christianity which posed a serious threat to the survival of Judaism as a religion.

Hey Jorel, I do acknowledge changes and additions made just prior to the canonization of the Tanach. It does not matter to me even for a little as long as they were made by Jews. And I tell you even the name of the principal men involved in those changes: Ezra and Nehemiah. Especially Ezra according to Baruch de Spinoza. But than again you would probably ask, "why do you care about the changes made in the NT?" Because of the Christian intrusion into the Tanach with the intent to implement Replacement Theology. We have not used Christians to prepare the Tanach for canonization. Christianity have used Jews to effect their forgeries.


#55    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,951 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 06:40 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 09 May 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

Hey Jorel, I do acknowledge changes and additions made just prior to the canonization of the Tanach. It does not matter to me even for a little as long as they were made by Jews. And I tell you even the name of the principal men involved in those changes: Ezra and Nehemiah. Especially Ezra according to Baruch de Spinoza. But than again you would probably ask, "why do you care about the changes made in the NT?" Because of the Christian intrusion into the Tanach with the intent to implement Replacement Theology. We have not used Christians to prepare the Tanach for canonization. Christianity have used Jews to effect their forgeries.

Well I do not acknowledge changes to either the Tanakh or the New Testament. The New Testament  letters were compiled into one book, but the books themselves were never altered to purposefully try to demonstrate something that was not already there.

I do not agree that either Ezra and Nehemiah altered the Tanakh, do you think the people would have stood for that? Do you think evidence of this would not be available?

No, what we have is different textual families that exist due to copying errors by scribes, over time these textual families differentiated in some sections of the Tanakh that no one knows what reading is the correct one. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped us a lot in this regard, giving us a clearer picture of what the original text was.

Replacement Theology is ignorance of the masses my friend, it just isn't there biblically, many have tried to instill hatred using this tool, but never was it biblical. The bible does not endorse the concept of replacement theology in any way, it actually says the opposite, it is the Christians who are grafted in to the vine from which Israel springs, the church did not replace Israel and the Jews, it is poor theology and based on one thing only, anti-Semitism.

Not even Paul ascribed to such beliefs even though you often try to show that he did.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#56    Bluefinger

Bluefinger

    I am a Christian, and I understand many don't like that. .

  • Member
  • 5,000 posts
  • Joined:02 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • "You'll know them by their fruits."

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:36 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 29 April 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:



Since we have no statement to the effect that the prophets throughout the Tanach were NOT married my answer to your question is that they were all married. And not because they were prophets or because Jesus was a Rabbi but because they were Jewish young men with the main aim or goal of all in Judaism which was to get married and father children. That was the common thing to do to build one's characher and prestige as a man in the society. To miss that would be embarrassing and immoral for lack of a better word, unless one was sick or retarded. To get married was a serious commandment, which still is. Now, think through the terrible disservice a Christian causes to Jesus by claiming he was not a married man.

I think that all of this comes from the impression that Jesus didn't intend to change Judaism.  But Matthew and Mark both show that Jesus did not see Judaism as the savior of the Jews.  Quite opposite, especially the rabbinical system.

Jerusalem was later destroyed and the Jews scattered to the ends of the earth while Christians inherited the entire Roman Empire without lifting a sword.

It is not enough to have a good mind.  The main thing is to use it well.     - Descartes

#57    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:44 PM

View PostJor-el, on 09 May 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Well I do not acknowledge changes to either the Tanakh or the New Testament. The New Testament  letters were compiled into one book, but the books themselves were never altered to purposefully try to demonstrate something that was not already there.

I do not agree that either Ezra and Nehemiah altered the Tanakh, do you think the people would have stood for that? Do you think evidence of this would not be available?

No, what we have is different textual families that exist due to copying errors by scribes, over time these textual families differentiated in some sections of the Tanakh that no one knows what reading is the correct one. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped us a lot in this regard, giving us a clearer picture of what the original text was.

Replacement Theology is ignorance of the masses my friend, it just isn't there biblically, many have tried to instill hatred using this tool, but never was it biblical. The bible does not endorse the concept of replacement theology in any way, it actually says the opposite, it is the Christians who are grafted in to the vine from which Israel springs, the church did not replace Israel and the Jews, it is poor theology and based on one thing only, anti-Semitism.

Not even Paul ascribed to such beliefs even though you often try to show that he did.

Jorel, we have been too long hammering on the subject of Replacement Theology and you almost willingly refuse to walk by sight. Do you know the meaning of walking by sight? It's when you see where you walk and know where you walk to. The opposite would be to walk by faith.  To walk by faith is to walk with a guide and a cane. Paul said that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight. (2 Cor.5:7) And you are doing exactly as the "Doctor says."

Would you like me to give you an exegesis of verse-by-verse from Galatians 4:21-31 and the book of Hebrews? If you still won't admit the truth of Replacement Theology as a Pauline policy I'll rest my case. The whole book of Hebrews is a compendium on Replacement Theology.  The only feedback I wish from you in case you decide to admit is that you understand that the NT is indeed a book about Replacement Theology but you prefer to adopt it as it is. You won't be the first. All Christians do it because they just can't avoid it. A Christian preacher can't open his or her mouth from a pulpit without preaching Replacement Theology. I have notticed that many times when I watch a TV Evangelist sermonizing.


#58    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:59 PM

View PostBluefinger, on 13 May 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

I think that all of this comes from the impression that Jesus didn't intend to change Judaism.  But Matthew and Mark both show that Jesus did not see Judaism as the savior of the Jews.  Quite opposite, especially the rabbinical system.

Jerusalem was later destroyed and the Jews scattered to the ends of the earth while Christians inherited the entire Roman Empire without lifting a sword.

The Rabbinical system preaches Judaism; the same Judaism that Jesus came to confirm down to the letter. (Mat.5:17-19)  And for the sword that Christianity did not need to lift against Rome was reserved to be lifted against the Jews by way of pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust only 70 years ago. What does it mean that Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans and Christians conquered Rome without a sword? Assyria conquered the Jews and fell; Babylon conquered the Jews and fell. Rome conquered the Jews and fell. Christianity will too. According to Jeremiah 46:28, of the other nations, the Lord will eventually make an end of them all but of the Jews He will only chastise as we deserve.


#59    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,951 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:35 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 15 May 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Jorel, we have been too long hammering on the subject of Replacement Theology and you almost willingly refuse to walk by sight. Do you know the meaning of walking by sight? It's when you see where you walk and know where you walk to. The opposite would be to walk by faith.  To walk by faith is to walk with a guide and a cane. Paul said that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight. (2 Cor.5:7) And you are doing exactly as the "Doctor says."

Would you like me to give you an exegesis of verse-by-verse from Galatians 4:21-31 and the book of Hebrews? If you still won't admit the truth of Replacement Theology as a Pauline policy I'll rest my case. The whole book of Hebrews is a compendium on Replacement Theology.  The only feedback I wish from you in case you decide to admit is that you understand that the NT is indeed a book about Replacement Theology but you prefer to adopt it as it is. You won't be the first. All Christians do it because they just can't avoid it. A Christian preacher can't open his or her mouth from a pulpit without preaching Replacement Theology. I have noticed that many times when I watch a TV Evangelist sermonizing.

Man Ben, That old toot again?

I have already been through this with you step by step, you refuse point blank to even admit that what I have said is correct, you are too fond of this replacement theology being central to the Christian doctrine. I agree with you on one thing, many churches preach it, the RCC teaches it, even if they have now backed away from it slightly, over the centuries it was taught matter of fact by the RCC and even the protestant churches, but the truth is (again), it is NOT BIBLICAL.

It is a misrepresentation of the text, to further political goals but no way is it biblical.

The RCC teaches a lot of things that are not biblical, then again the bible is not central to their belief system, they are quite Rabbinical in their approach, since tradition plays as much a part in their interpretation as does the text itself. Since they have a very long tradition of sticking it to the Jews, it is no wonder that it has influenced their approach, but again let me stress, it is not biblical, it is NOT what Paul was teaching, it is a perversion of the truth.

It is in that light that I reject your statements on Replacement Theology. I even have a thread, a few years old where I have shown this to be the case.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=188367

The book of Hebrews is one of the two greatest theological treatises of the New Testament. This letter is, in a real sense, the "Leviticus" of the New Testament, detailing how the Lord Jesus Christ is both the fulfillment and the successor to all that had gone on before.

The extreme dilemma of the Jewish Christians, especially while the Temple was still standing, was their extreme predicament.

They had been drawn from a divinely appointed religion, with divinely appointed priests officiating in a divinely appointed Temple, accomplishing a divinely ordered service, all of which had been ennobled throughout their entire history.

How could believing priests and Pharisees remain "zealous of the Law"? It was, after all, the Jewish world that had crucified Christ and was repudiating Him.

This letter was clearly aimed at the people who were now Christians but had come out of Judaism. It focuses on the background that they came from, and tries to demonstrate how Jesus was a fulfillment of those things; in fact, he superseded those things. Jesus is the very fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Galatians 4:21-31

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:


“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”


28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul is comparing two types of people, those who are Jewish by birth, thus flesh and blood sons of the Mosaic covenant. These are the slaves, because they are under the slavery of the Mosaic Laws.

They are contrasted with those people who are children of the Jerusalem from above, a reference to heaven and God, thus he is talking of those who became sons in spirit rather than belonging to a bloodline of the flesh. These people he considers to be free, because none of them are bound by the Mosaic Laws which could only show our unworthiness before God. Thus the barren woman bears sons (spiritual children), who are promised (as Isaac was a child of promise to Abraham) that they would become more numerous than those sons of the flesh.

And as Ishmaels descendants persecuted the literal sons of the promise according to the spirit, as given to Abraham, so do now the children of the promise (the Jews), persecute the sons in the Spirit (the Gentile and Jewish Christian believers).

He then tells people to leave slavery behind, to leave those who are now the persecutors, and become free in the promise of Christ.

One thing to keep in mind here, this Letter was specifically addressed to the Jewish Christians, that is why it is called "Hebrews", it is to them that this whole message is being written. If your allegations were true, he would NOT be saying this to the very Jews who now believed in Christ.

He is not teaching replacement of Jews with Christians, he is not teaching that the promises were withdrawn from the Jews and Given to the church, which is exactly what Replacement Theology teaches, Paul is very clear on this, the Church is grafted into the promises given to the Jews, they have not been cut off.

If you pay attention you will notice a common theme within Christianity. Those Christians who teach Amillennialism also teach Replacement Theology where the Church is viewed as replacing Israel in God's program for mankind. In addition to forcing an allegorization of many key passages of Scripture, this also led to the tragedy of the Holocaust in Europe. The responsibility for the six million Jews who were systematically murdered in the concentration camps has to include the silent pulpits who had embraced this heretical eschatology and its attendant anti-Semitism.

Do you honestly think that Paul would ever willingly embrace a concept that would lead to a Jewish slaughter? There was no hate in the man that could justify such a belief. Paul wanted to win the Jews to Jesus, not destroy them. Paul did teach a path that was the culmination of Judaism and Jewish belief, He taught the path that should have led them all to encounter their Messiah, to him that was indeed the superior path, that is the essence of this text.

You can maintain your belief in the evil Paul, but his words demonstrate the very opposite of what you claim.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#60    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,473 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:10 PM

Considering Jesus as a desendant of Isaac said he didn t come to change any laws, but add to them.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users