The wedding of jesus

[angellous_evangellous]

I think you are going past the evidence when you say this. There is no indication that he was "spreading Hellenistic ideals" to his soldiers in Galilee.

I didn't say that.

What I am saying is that there is enough contact with Greek and Roman ideals in Galilee - from Jews like Josephus (or other Hellenized Jews) interacting with whatever wealthier families that may have existed in the region to tax collectors, and heck even people travelling up to Jerusalem and back again. Imagining this community as isolated from Hellenism is a serious error considering that it would be readily available in these forms.

 

[Charity]

Even if Jesus "needed to be married before starting his ministry" (something I don't believe for a minute for the very reasons you steadfastly ignore), it's impossible for the Johannine account of the Cana wedding to be Jesus' wedding (for the very reasons you steadfastly ignore).

This is the last thread of yours, Ben, that I plan to respond to. You have proven yourself utterly incapable of engaging in conversation. You talk AT us or AROUND us or PAST us. Anything but WITH us. I recommend that everyone on this forum do as I plan to do and put you on a rigorous IGNORE list.

I once again have to agree with you Dunemeister. :bonk: I've been beating my self over the head with all the posts I've given....and for what? Just utter nonsense and absurd speculation.......I've researched and cross referenced this only to arrive at the same conclusion as when I started.......If I put a "hail" in front of Mary everytime I tried to explain the difference in two different Mary's I would be a full fledge Catholic by now....At least they got the right Mary,

Well I am going to do what I should have done earlier and get the "hail" out of here.

 

[Ben Masada]

I once again have to agree with you Dunemeister. :bonk: I've been beating my self over the head with all the posts I've given....and for what? Just utter nonsense and absurd speculation.......I've researched and cross referenced this only to arrive at the same conclusion as when I started.......If I put a "hail" in front of Mary everytime I tried to explain the difference in two different Mary's I would be a full fledge Catholic by now....At least they got the right Mary,

Well I am going to do what I should have done earlier and get the "hail" out of here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you find too hard to accept that the marriage ceremony at Canah was Jesus', erase from your NT all quotations referring to Jesus as Rabbi. He was not a Rabbi.
Now, what do we have left to say about Jesus if he was not any of the other things Christians claim he was?

Now, regarding your cry-wolf that I am not talking with you, I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I have contributed with my topics for discussions, and I have gone through people's comments to follow up, and what else am I supoosed to
to so that you don't get the "hail" out of here? Don't you think you are being a little bit too childish? And if you get upset at my question, then you are.

Ben

 

[Oberon]

What I am saying is that there is enough contact with Greek and Roman ideals in Galilee - from Jews like Josephus (or other Hellenized Jews) interacting with whatever wealthier families that may have existed in the region to tax collectors, and heck even people travelling up to Jerusalem and back again. Imagining this community as isolated from Hellenism is a serious error considering that it would be readily available in these forms.

Again, I think you are going beyond what the evidence shows. You have to imagine how seriously isolated small villages can be. There are villages in the Middle East even today that receive almost no contact with the outside world. I think it is unlikely that any of these villages received "no contact" with Hellenistic ideas. However, the important question is whether or not foreign customs or ideals were absorbed into the community. And I just don't see the evidence.

If you find too hard to accept that the marriage ceremony at Canah was Jesus', erase from your NT all quotations referring to Jesus as Rabbi. He was not a Rabbi.

Again, Rabbi meant something very different at this time. It simply meant teacher. Rabbinic Judaism did not exist!

I have contributed with my topics for discussions, and I have gone through people's comments to follow up, and what else am I supoosed to
to so that you don't get the "hail" out of here?

You ignore plenty. For example, we already covered the Rabbi issue. I listed a number of issues that I or others had raised that you never responded to. I think all take Dunemeister's advice here.

John's authorship supersedes any historical questions, because he is recording them from his (or her) point of view, and expressing this pov according to certain goals.

Since we are talking about the whether or not Jesus was married, and whether this was his marriage, which is a historical question, how can you say this?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again, I think you are going beyond what the evidence shows. You have to imagine how seriously isolated small villages can be. There are villages in the Middle East even today that receive almost no contact with the outside world. I think it is unlikely that any of these villages received "no contact" with Hellenistic ideas. However, the important question is whether or not foreign customs or ideals were absorbed into the community. And I just don't see the evidence.

And I don't see evidence for isolation. While you see me making too much of evidence (and you've repeatedly stretched my views), I see you accepting an argument from silence. There is evidence which makes it possible that there is interaction with Hellenistic ideas - note I'm not saying that there was - and therefore there's not evidence of the kind of vacuum that you imagine.

Seriously - do you really think, in light of Jesus' travels - that these villages were all that isolated?

 

[Charity]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you find too hard to accept that the marriage ceremony at Canah was Jesus', erase from your NT all quotations referring to Jesus as Rabbi. He was not a Rabbi.
Now, what do we have left to say about Jesus if he was not any of the other things Christians claim he was?

Now, regarding your cry-wolf that I am not talking with you, I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I have contributed with my topics for discussions, and I have gone through people's comments to follow up, and what else am I supoosed to
to so that you don't get the "hail" out of here? Don't you think you are being a little bit too childish? And if you get upset at my question, then you are.

Ben

Ben, I am not being childish, and I definitely am not mad, or even upset. Anyone on here that knows, me knows that I joke and say funny things that is just part of my personality....I don't get mad very often, Actually I am pretty easy going....I just see no point in sticking around on this thread anymore, it's like beating a dead horse and trying to make it go....we aren't going any place except in circles. I believe you to be wrong, sorry, your mistaken about the Mary's they are not the same, and Rabbi means teacher. Good luck with your endeavor.
Peace
Charity

 

[Heneni]

PHEWW.....what a controversy this is proving to be.

Oberon,

To confirm that Rabbonic Judiasm did not exist at the time, it would be possilbe to find a teacher of the law, who was not married. Ok..will look into it.

As far as I can tell I have discovered the following pointing towards the idea that this marriage was a family wedding of jesus.

1. mary felt she could order the servants around
2. this would indicate that this marriage was of one of her sons or that of Jesus
3. When mary approached jesus with the wine problem, jesus said 'what has that got to do with me?' That is just like jesus staying true to his dislike of tradition. He wanted to make it clear that he wasnt much of a tradisional guy. But if he changed the water into wine, he would have done it for his mothers sake and with gods approval. It could mean something else too...
4. The servants who were involved in this miracle, were the disciples, which is why this is not second hand knowledge, or after the fact stuff that john wrote, he was an eyewitness to the wine making miracle.
5. The master of the ceremony which was the head servant so to speak of this event would have tasted the wine and commented on how wonderful it was, because he himself did not see the miracle happen, the servants did, the servants were the disciples, so the text later indicates that the disciples after witnessing this miracle, put their faith in jesus.
6. The word invited is not in the concordance as a word true to the meaning of what the writer was trying to say, the word 'call forth' is more likely. This indicates that there was little choice in the matter, and that jesus was expected to be there. The text says, that BOTH Jesus and his disciples were called to the wedding, and tradisionaly the bridgegroom and his friends were called to the brides house when she was ready to be fetched and take her to his house. That is something I consider to be very important 'evidence' if I want to consider this wedding to be an account of jesus's wedding.
7. It was traditionally the bridgegrooms family who was responsible for providing the wine, pointing towards the fact that this was jesus or one of his brothers weddings, and why mary would bother jesus with this at all.
8. Perhaps when jesus asked mary 'what concern is this of me', he meant 'why do you think I can do anything about it?' and later he said..'his time had not yet come'. So he could do something about it, and mary knew it, but he felt that his time for performing miracles did not come yet, and mary was concerning him with something that would indeed require a miracle to fix. So Jesus wasnt trying to say, this is not my wedding mom, go away, he was trying to say, that what she was about to ask him to do, was not his time to do. And also, jesus was known to say that he concerns himself with the works his father gives him to do, so when mary comes with a request, its not what he would consider the work of the kingdom. He must have asked god the father if he could go ahead and do the magic trick, since he never did anything without his father's approval anyway.


I think it is quite possible that this was jesus's wedding. However, why would jesus get married if he knew he was going to be dead in few chapter?



Now WHO did he marry? Ben seems to think its Mary Magdelene. Hmmm...

 

[Heneni]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you find too hard to accept that the marriage ceremony at Canah was Jesus', erase from your NT all quotations referring to Jesus as Rabbi. He was not a Rabbi.
Now, what do we have left to say about Jesus if he was not any of the other things Christians claim he was?

Now, regarding your cry-wolf that I am not talking with you, I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I have contributed with my topics for discussions, and I have gone through people's comments to follow up, and what else am I supoosed to
to so that you don't get the "hail" out of here? Don't you think you are being a little bit too childish? And if you get upset at my question, then you are.

Ben

Hey ben! Keep your pants on, its just, you have actually started something here, that got me thinking. But you are not being any help either. You are throwing these ideas out there, but you dont give us a bit more than you are when we ask you for it . Perhaps you are simply throwing this out there because a friend of a friend told you. Its not really the fruit of your own thinking is it? Anyway ben, you are not a sport for debating. Bit sad really. I like analysing things. Exactly what you said I dont do. Though, would it be safe to say there isnt much more you can say then?:sarcastic

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is the last thread of yours, Ben, that I plan to respond to. You have proven yourself utterly incapable of engaging in conversation. You talk AT us or AROUND us or PAST us. Anything but WITH us.

Absolutely excellent.

 

[Oberon]

To confirm that Rabbonic Judiasm did not exist at the time,

This is something very well known. Look into Josephus' description of the "divisions" of Judaism at the time. Rabbinic Judaism did not began until sometime after the destruction of the temple. Before that, the temple was the "center" for most Jews (groups like the Essenes being the exception). Afterword, the "oral torah," eventually becoming the Mishnah, seems to have replaced it to a degree, and rabbinic Judaism seems to have grown out of groups like the pharisees.

it would be possilbe to find a teacher of the law, who was not married.

Look into the Qumran sect.

1. mary felt she could order the servants around
2. this would indicate that this marriage was of one of her sons or that of Jesus

Why would it mean that? I have already given evidence (from Sirach) that in ceremonies/feast it was a known tradition for a guest to be chosen to order around servents and such.

3. When mary approached jesus with the wine problem, jesus said 'what has that got to do with me?'

Again, the line does not read simply "what does it have to do with me?" but "what does it have to do with me or with you?"

Jn 2.4 "Ti emoi kai soi, gunai" "What [is this] to you and to me, woman?"

Interestingly enough, he goes on to see, "it is not yet my hour." Forgetting the traditional interpretation for a moment, if this was his wedding, it would certainly be an odd thing for him to say.


Edit: Angellous, I would love to continue our discussion on the extent of Hellenistic influence in Galilee, but it is kind of off topic. If you want to continue it feel free to send me a message.

4. The servants who were involved in this miracle, were the disciples, which is why this is not second hand knowledge, or after the fact stuff that john wrote, he was an eyewitness to the wine making miracle.

No where else does John refer to the disciples as simply "servents". And if they were his disciples, why would Mary have to tell them "Do whatever he says"? They were his disciples, so of course they would.

6. The word invited is not in the concordance as a word true to the meaning of what the writer was trying to say, the word 'call forth' is more likely. This indicates that there was little choice in the matter, and that jesus was expected to be there.

It means that a concordance is not a lexicon. In other words, it is not meant for people to really get definitions of words. It is meant to conform to the translation that it is based on.

The text says, that BOTH Jesus and his disciples were called to the wedding, and tradisionaly the bridgegroom and his friends were called to the brides house when she was ready to be fetched and take her to his house.

Where are you getting this from? What text indicates that at a Jewish wedding at this time this would happen?

7. It was traditionally the bridgegrooms family who was responsible for providing the wine, pointing towards the fact that this was jesus or one of his brothers weddings, and why mary would bother jesus with this at all.

Your answer is because Mary new Jesus could perform miracles. Also, I can only reiterate that guests did get involved with the feasts. And on what are you basing your knowledge of tradition?

 

[Heneni]

Hi Oberon!

Thanks for your response. Ben seems to think that it was necessary for jesus to be married to be called a rabbi. You say it wasnt custom back then. I say it doesnt matter. Ok. so back then a man didnt have to be married to be called a rabbi. So Jesus did not have to get married to be called rabbi. Either way, whether he married or not makes no difference to being called a rabbi.

What then would a man have to do back then, to be called a rabbi? I suspect he would have to undergo some training. I dont think Jesus was into tradition, and would not have gone through a formal training course. It doesnt seem like everybody called him rabbi. Some people called him rabbi because that is what he was to them. But whether jesus was 'legally' a rabbi, either through marrying or getting training he wasnt too much bothered about it.

If it wasnt necessary for jesus to marry in order to be called a rabbi, then he could have married anyway. If it was necessary for jesus to get married to be called a rabbi, i dont think he would have married because it was tradition. I dont think jesus would have tied the knot just so that he would be considered a rabbi.

So to me, whatever Jesus did, get married or not, it had nothing to do with what others naturally considered him to be. Perhaps that was part of the reason the hypocrites hated him. He was teaching the word of god since he was a young boy, i dont think he considered it necessary to wait until he is married to teach.

It is worthy mentioning though, that after this wedding the whole ministry of jesus seemed to get off the ground.

 

[DallasApple]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you find too hard to accept that the marriage ceremony at Canah was Jesus', erase from your NT all quotations referring to Jesus as Rabbi. He was not a Rabbi.
Now, what do we have left to say about Jesus if he was not any of the other things Christians claim he was?

Now, regarding your cry-wolf that I am not talking with you, I am not sure if I understand what you mean. I have contributed with my topics for discussions, and I have gone through people's comments to follow up, and what else am I supoosed to
to so that you don't get the "hail" out of here? Don't you think you are being a little bit too childish? And if you get upset at my question, then you are.

Ben

Here is the problem Ben..Its very arrogant to suggest that anyone on this thread sees real evidence or "proof" that Jesus was married and you have determined they just find it "too hard to accept"..That is not what I see here..I see people discussing it as a possibliltity and determing for there own selves based on what information we have that in thier opinion he was or wasnt or we will never know..But further the fact you are claiming that not only do you know the answer to that(he was married) but you know specifically TO WHOM and people are just refusing to accept it is again extremely arrogant.

You are not the final authority or who gets to determine what motivates other people to come to whatever conclusion they do..The people on this thread have been very open minded and reasonable..Just because any one in particular does not believe your theory(and thats exactly what it is Ben..your theory not facts) to be accurate does not equate to denial of the truth..

Love

Dallas

 

[Oberon]

What then would a man have to do back then, to be called a rabbi? I suspect he would have to undergo some training.

Not really. In fact, Rabbi could even mean sir, or master. In this context it probably just meant teacher. The point is that during Jesus' lifetime one was not "a" rabbi. Rabbi was a "honorary title of address." One did not "become" a rabbi at this time.

 

[Heneni]

Not really. In fact, Rabbi could even mean sir, or master. In this context it probably just meant teacher. The point is that during Jesus' lifetime one was not "a" rabbi. Rabbi was a "honorary title of address." One did not "become" a rabbi at this time.

Ok if that be the case, then jesus did not have to be a rabbi to start teaching. It means that he could have got on with it, without marrying. Seems like if Jesus married it would have been because he wanted to.

 

[Oberon]

It means that he could have got on with it, without marrying. Seems like if Jesus married it would have been because he wanted to.

If he was married, that would probably be the reason.

Ok if that be the case, then jesus did not have to be a rabbi to start teaching

It seems like you are still using the modern definition of rabbi. NO ONE during Jesus' time was "a rabbi". Think of the word rabbi in this context as "sir" or "teacher." It was not a profession, or a position, or anything like what it came to be after the destruction of the temple. It was just a form of address.

 

[Heneni]

It seems like you are still using the modern definition of rabbi. NO ONE during Jesus' time was "a rabbi". Think of the word rabbi in this context as "sir" or "teacher." It was not a profession, or a position, or anything like what it came to be after the destruction of the temple. It was just a form of address.

Ok, so jesus could have been called rabbi, as in 'sir'. Thats fine.

 

[Heneni]

Oberon, it was tradition back then for the father of a girl to approve of a husband for her. It was sort of like an arranged marriage. If jesus married mary magdalene, then mary's father must have approved of jesus. But ben seems to think mary's father was dead...any comments?

 

[Oberon]

If jesus married mary magdalene, then mary's father must have approved of jesus. But ben seems to think mary's father was dead...any comments?

Mary Magdalene's very name suggests not only that her father is not around, but that she is unmarried. Women tended to be identified by their relationship to men, e.g. Mary wife of Jesus, Mother of John, etc. The fact that she is identified by where she comes from suggests she was unmarried.

 

[Heneni]

Ok so it would seem that mary of magdala was fatherless. How would a marriage between a fatherless women and another jewish guy be arranged then?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok so it would seem that mary of magdala was fatherless. How would a marriage between a fatherless women and another jewish guy be arranged then?

No need to assume that...

... but IMHO a "fatherless woman" would be undesirable and almost certainly completely impoverished... unless the "Jewish community" followed Roman customs and allowed widows (eg, Mary's mother) to own property. That is, the woman would be "fatherless" late in life rather than early in life, in which case she would be "identified" by whoever took care of her, like another family member. Being that there is no name at all mentioned, it seems that Mary did not have any means of support at all, unless she were a wealthy widow - her husband left her some property that could sustain her.

In the NT, several "women of means" followed Jesus and his disciples around, enabling them to travel and preach (and do other things). These women were most likely widows who invested their money in Jesus - one of these wealthy widows may have been Mary Magdalene.