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.


- - - - -

Evidence That Jesus Was Married (2)


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#16    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:28 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 16 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:


i got him marrying Mary in the 1st episode, but can`t we have him marry someone else each time in the other series?

No, you can have more and more evidences that he was a married man. And IMHO, the bride was Mary Magdalene as many other evidences tell me so. Let me know when you are ready for evidence part 3.

Ben


#17    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:28 PM

That the bride was not talked about, I can understand in a religious Jewish environment.



Nice!!!

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#18    SubjectDigamma

SubjectDigamma

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:43 PM

I'm Christian soooooo I don't fight over pennies I'm Leiding  the right road f u


#19    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:59 PM

View PostSubjectDigamma, on 16 February 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

I'm Christian soooooo I don't fight over pennies I'm Leiding  the right road f u.

To discuss about Jesus' social status is not "fighting over pennies." If Jesus was not a married man, even his title of Rabbi or
Master becomes doubtiful.

Ben


#20    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,394 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 16 February 2013 - 11:52 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 16 February 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

No quote to document what you say and no need anyways. It makes no sense. There is absolutely nothing in the text to assert that the groom, if not Jesus, had been consulted, since his was the traditional assignment to provide for the wine. Then, Mary, the mother of Jesus could not have gone to Jesus for help because she had never seen him making any kind of miracle. The gospel writer clearly reports that it was Jesus very first miracle. Therefore, Mary went to Jesus because he was indeed the groom.

Ben

John 2-1-And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

Some suppose that the third day, mentioned here, refers to the third day of the marriage feast: such feasts lasting among the Jews seven days. See Judges 14:12, Judges 14:17, Judges 14:18,

Jesus arrived on the third day of the wedding feast,  there for it was not his wedding:)

Edited by docyabut2, 17 February 2013 - 12:03 AM.


#21    Everdred

Everdred

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:16 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 16 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Yes, "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Am I the groom? Go to the groom and let him know. There was a groom, I suppose. Why not a single word about him? That the bride was not talked about, I can understand in a religious Jewish environment. But the grom is always the celebrity in a Jewish wedding.

Ben

The gospels are written about Jesus.  If we were reading a document about the wedding and it didn't mention the groom, it'd be weird, certainly.  But we're reading about a miracle performed by Jesus, so we naturally get only enough details to put the miracle in context--the identity of those being married is inconsequential.


#22    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:07 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 16 February 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:


John 2-1-And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

Some suppose that the third day, mentioned here, refers to the third day of the marriage feast: such feasts lasting among the Jews seven days. See Judges 14:12, Judges 14:17, Judges 14:18,

Jesus arrived on the third day of the wedding feast,  there for it was not his wedding:)

The third day after Jesus was immersed (baptized) by Yonathan (John) in the Jordan River. The next day or the second day after the immertion John saw that Jesus was walking by and suggested to two of his disciples to follow Jesus. (John 1:35-39) Jesus was on his way to Galilee (Cana). Then, on the third day he was there. "And the mother of Jesus was there." But of course! What mother would not attend to his son's wedding? Nobody assumes that it was the third day of a wedding celebration. What are you talking about? Again, it was the third day since the day of his immersion by John in the Jordan River.

Ben




#23    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 20 February 2013 - 10:13 PM

View PostEverdred, on 17 February 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:



The gospels are written about Jesus.  If we were reading a document about the wedding and it didn't mention the groom, it'd be weird, certainly.  But we're reading about a miracle performed by Jesus, so we naturally get only enough details to put the miracle in context--the identity of those being married is inconsequential.

The miracle was only the way found by the writer or editor or the Church to cover up the truth about the real groom in that wedding at Cana. The Church could not live with the Pauline idea that God in the flesh of Jesus could be a married man. What happened here was the interpolation of a pious forgery. Now, Christians are in trouble to solve the contradictions.

Ben


#24    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,394 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:52 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 20 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

The third day after Jesus was immersed (baptized) by Yonathan (John) in the Jordan River. The next day or the second day after the immertion John saw that Jesus was walking by and suggested to two of his disciples to follow Jesus. (John 1:35-39) Jesus was on his way to Galilee (Cana). Then, on the third day he was there. "And the mother of Jesus was there." But of course! What mother would not attend to his son's wedding? Nobody assumes that it was the third day of a wedding celebration. What are you talking about? Again, it was the third day since the day of his immersion by John in the Jordan River.

Ben

Ben heres some interesting info on Jewish weddings, it appears Jesus arrived on a feast day to produce the wine, however does`nt it say they do not marry women on a feast day, neither virgins, nor widows:''
The reason of it was, that they might not mix one joy with another; and lest a man should leave the joy of the feast, for the joy of his wife.For he must be employed in the marriage feast three days before the marriage.So considering the governer said  the best wine was saved until the last,must have meant the last day of the feast, so Jesus was`n there on the frist few days of the feast before the marriage. :)  


http://bible.cc/john/2-1.htm

Edited by docyabut2, 21 February 2013 - 11:19 AM.


#25    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:55 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 21 February 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:



Ben heres some interesting info on Jewish weddings, it appears Jesus arrived on a feast day to produce the wine, however does`nt it say they do not marry women on a feast day, neither virgins, nor widows:''
The reason of it was, that they might not mix one joy with another; and lest a man should leave the joy of the feast, for the joy of his wife.For he must be employed in the marriage feast three days before the marriage.So considering the governer said  the best wine was saved until the last,must have meant the last day of the feast, so Jesus was`n there on the frist few days of the feast before the marriage. :)  

I know about Jewish wedding celebrations and I know you are speculating - which is not bad to speculate - but IMHO, the third day in Cana has nothing to do with Jesus arriving already on the third day of the wedding. It is the third day after his immersion by John. In fact, that mikveh in the Jordan was Jesus' anointing for the Rabbinate which he was supposed to confirm with his wedding within the next three days. Otherwise, he could not officiate as a Rabbi for being a single man. A Rabbi or Master could not teach as a single man. He had to be married. And as Paul himself said, married at least once. (I Tim. 3:2)

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada, 21 February 2013 - 09:57 PM.


#26    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:17 PM

Was it the 1st Christian wedding then, or was it a typical Jewish wedding?

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#27    Everdred

Everdred

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

View PostBen Masada, on 20 February 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

The miracle was only the way found by the writer or editor or the Church to cover up the truth about the real groom in that wedding at Cana. The Church could not live with the Pauline idea that God in the flesh of Jesus could be a married man. What happened here was the interpolation of a pious forgery. Now, Christians are in trouble to solve the contradictions.

Ben

It seems to me the writer could have just followed the other gospels in not mentioning the wedding if he wanted to cover it up.  Usually the best way to cover things up is not to mention them.  You certainly wouldn't be speculating about the wedding if the writer didn't include it.  

I think you're really grasping at straws here.


#28    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:35 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 21 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Was it the 1st Christian wedding then, or was it a typical Jewish wedding?

It was a typical Jewish wedding. Christianity did not exist yet. Jesus never thought it would ever rise. It was founded by Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. (Acts 11:26)

Ben


#29    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:46 PM

View PostEverdred, on 22 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:


It seems to me the writer could have just followed the other gospels in not mentioning the wedding if he wanted to cover it up.  Usually the best way to cover things up is not to mention them.  You certainly wouldn't be speculating about the wedding if the writer didn't include it.  

I think you're really grasping at straws here.

Wow! Everdred, that was a good one! I agree with you 101%. Perhaps, if we can speculate, the writer missed that chance because of the
opportunity he took advantage of to introduce Jesus' first miracle. He thought perhaps that by making it a miracle, the readers would not thing of Jesus as the groom. And by reminding us of the silence of the other gospels, you have brought up the contradiction that while for them Jesus was in the desert fasting, John had Jesus in Cana feasting. What an embarrassment!

Ben




#30    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,394 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:59 AM

Does`nt mean anything, he also fed the crowds.It appears Jesus was a very rich man. and could supply the people where ever he went with food or wine.  If you really want  to be logical :)


http://en.wikipedia....g_the_multitude

Edited by docyabut2, 26 February 2013 - 11:03 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users