The wedding of jesus

[gnostic]

As a race, the Edomites might be considered gentile, but there were no gentile back then. Esau was still part of the family that started with Abraham, as were Lot and Ishmael. They were separate tribes yet.

You are simply explaining later events with your current thinking, which is out of context in reality of the literature.

Jacob didn't start with 12 tribes on the instant that his sons were born. He had grandchildren, and possibly great children before he died, but they were all still part of his clan. Jacob's sons did start their own individual clans, but they were not yet tribes. Jacob's sons can claim to be ancestors to the tribes later on.

Regardless of what you think Esau was still part of Isaac's clan, even though he went his separate way. So putting "Gentile" identity on Esau is premature (EDIT: sorry, "premature", not "immature"). You are actually referring to Edomites later on, but you can't do this until after his (Esau's) death and death of his children and grandchildren.

 

[Ben Masada]

As a race, the Edomites might be considered gentile, but there were no gentile back then. Esau was still part of the family that started with Abraham, as were Lot and Ishmael. They were separate tribes yet.

You are simply explaining later events with your current thinking, which is out of context in reality of the literature.

Jacob didn't start with 12 tribes on the instant that his sons were born. He had grandchildren, and possibly great children before he died, but they were all still part of his clan. Jacob's sons did start their own individual clans, but they were not yet tribes. Jacob's sons can claim to be ancestors to the tribes later on.

Regardless of what you think Esau was still part of Isaac's clan, even though he went his separate way. So putting "Gentile" identity on Esau is premature (EDIT: sorry, "premature", not "immature"). You are actually referring to Edomites later on, but you can't do this until after his (Esau's) death and death of his children and grandchildren.

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

I said that Esau gave origin to a Gentile nation, as Ishmael gave origin to a Gentile nation, as Amon and Moab, Lot's children gave origin to Gentile nations, and so forth. Only Jacob gave origin to a non-Gentile nation.
Ben

 

[gnostic]

I said that Esau gave origin to a Gentile nation, as Ishmael gave origin to a Gentile nation, as Amon and Moab, Lot's children gave origin to Gentile nations, and so forth. Only Jacob gave origin to a non-Gentile nation.

Which I happened to agree.

What I don't agree with, is your earlier assertion that Esau is that was "born a Gentile". Your words, Ben, not mine.

Esau is essentially Hebrew, since he is descendant of Abraham (and of Isaac). There's no being Jewish until Moses' time, and Moses came in the line of Israel, which is Jacob. The word "Hebrew" became synonymic with "Israelite" and "Jewish" only in the Exodus.

 

[Ben Masada]

Which I happened to agree.

What I don't agree with, is your earlier assertion that Esau is that was "born a Gentile". Your words, Ben, not mine.

Esau is essentially Hebrew, since he is descendant of Abraham (and of Isaac). There's no being Jewish until Moses' time, and Moses came in the line of Israel, which is Jacob. The word "Hebrew" became synonymic with "Israelite" and "Jewish" only in the Exodus.

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

Linten, I don't have right now the quotation I need to show you that God had rejected Esau still in the womb of Rebeca and chosen Jacob but I am going to find it. What I have right now is God's answer to Rebeca's prayer about the fight between the twins still inside her womb. That they were two nations and that one would surpass the other. That's pretty much an indication that from the womb they were different. Therefore, one Gentile the other "Jewish." (Gen. 25:23)

Essencially Hebrew or not, Esau, Ishmael, Amon, Moab, etc were practically born as Gentiles.

You say, "there is no being Jewish until Moses' time? You are mistaken here. There is no being Jewish until the return from the Babylonian exile.

Ben:sarcastic

 

[gnostic]

God didn't reject Esau before his birth, Ben.

All it (Genesis 25:23) says is that two nations will from their birth and that one (nation) will be mightier than the other. It doesn't say that God will reject Esau's birth, but it is clear that God did favor Jacob, later on.

Again, you are pushing more meaning into a verse. Keep the text in its proper context, please.

 

[Heneni]

Romans 9:10 For Ben and Gnostic...


Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

 

[Poisonshady313]

You say, "there is no being Jewish until Moses' time? You are mistaken here. There is no being Jewish until the return from the Babylonian exile.

Ben:sarcastic

That's not entirely true. The book of Esther occurs during the Babylonian exile, and Mordechai, from the tribe of Benjamin, is called "ish yehudi"... Jewish man.

 

[Ben Masada]

That's not entirely true. The book of Esther occurs during the Babylonian exile, and Mordechai, from the tribe of Benjamin, is called "ish yehudi"... Jewish man.

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

You are right. I agree with you. But I meant in Israel. In exile they had already conceived the new Jewish identity.
Ben :bow:

 

[Ben Masada]

Oh it's me again Ben......By the way Mary Magdalene was from Magdala and should not be confused with Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha who lived in Bethany...Once Again I have to say to you "Study to shew thyself approved"
Magdala was located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Hi Charity,

No honey, Mary was not from Magdala. I'll tell you a little more of things people find too hard to listen to. Prostitution was and still is forbidden by Law in Israel.
However, in some cities, very few cities, the Law would permit houses of prostitution. At that time in the First Century, Magdala was a famous one especially
because of Mary of Bethany. She was strikingly beautiful and a famous courtesan and rich Madam who would keep one of more of those houses with many "call-girls."
Her place was well-known and internationally visited especially by Babylonian and Persian Jews who would come three of more times to Jerusalem for the festivals.


Remember that Jesus had to exorcise seven demons out of her? That's not literal. The number seven means how hard it was for Jesus to get across to her given her
position in the business. What it's still not clear to me is that how Jesus got to meet her so as to fall in love with each other. Perhaps because Magdala was bordering
with Galilee, and very close to Nazareth where Jesus lived. It took a long time until Mary finally decided to leave her life and return to Bethany, and obviously to Jesus
full time. Jesus needed to marry to get officiated as an ambulant Rabbi, and he could not marry anyone else being in love with Mary.


Now, you would ask why then Mary of Magdala if she was of Bethany? She had become the most famous Madam of Magdala. She did leave Magdala and her life, but the
epithet never left her. She was too well-known for people to stop seeing her as Mary of Magdala or Mary Magdalene.


Now it occurs to me the following question: I know from experience that to provide the wine for the guests at a wedding party, it was the duty of the Bridegroom.
If not anything else, but the wine was part of the tradition. Bear in mind that, when they were running out of wine, instead of going his mother Mary to the Bridegroom
with the complaint, she went to Jesus. Let's speculate that the thing went thus: "Hey son, there is no more wine. What should we do?" If Jesus was not the Bridegroom,
he should at least have told her to take the news to the Bridegroom. That's indeed a very strong evidence.


Sorry honey, if this is too hard on you; but Jesus was the Bridegroom and Mary Magdalene was his gorgeous Bride. And I am very happy that they did love each other.

Ben )(

 

[Charity]

Ben Sweetie, That is not a recent post for me, but however I enjoy discussing it with you. Since I have come to admire you greatly I will be sweet, kind, loving and polite.
I still say this was not the wedding of Jesus. I think it could have been a brother or even his sister's wedding. That to me would explain why Mary was taking charge. Since Jesus would have been the oldest of the children of any conceived by Mary and Joseph and since accounts seem to indicate that Joseph was deceased around this time, I could see that Mary would be depending on Jesus to be the next in line as the male role in the family......
I do respect your theory but as you know I am a woman who stands for what she believes. I believe your theory is not correct. Call it woman's intuition and yes I am a hopeless romantic, but I find my version works for me. I just don't think that knowing His mission and what God had planned for Jesus would leave Jesus time for personal involvement with any woman.
I do enjoy it when you present your argument sweetie, you do it with such charisma and I have to admire the fact that you present quite a challenge.
:hug:

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Sweetie, That is not a recent post for me, but however I enjoy discussing it with you. Since I have come to admire you greatly I will be sweet, kind, loving and polite.
I still say this was not the wedding of Jesus. I think it could have been a brother or even his sister's wedding. That to me would explain why Mary was taking charge. Since Jesus would have been the oldest of the children of any conceived by Mary and Joseph and since accounts seem to indicate that Joseph was deceased around this time, I could see that Mary would be depending on Jesus to be the next in line as the male role in the family......
I do respect your theory but as you know I am a woman who stands for what she believes. I believe your theory is not correct. Call it woman's intuition and yes I am a hopeless romantic, but I find my version works for me. I just don't think that knowing His mission and what God had planned for Jesus would leave Jesus time for personal involvement with any woman.
I do enjoy it when you present your argument sweetie, you do it with such charisma and I have to admire the fact that you present quite a challenge.
:hug:

I understand you Charity, the point you present in the first paragraph is perfectly valid. It could have been a brother of Jesus', and since Joseph was dead by then, Jesus could have very well been the one in charge.

But this of Jesus, a man at age 30, rooming around with twelve guys for three years with no time for any personal involvement with a woman, is a hard pill to swallow.
Had not the man hormones raving inside, shouting for expression at the arms of a lovely woman? I think that to deny Jesus the best of life to a man at his age, would
say more in terms of embarrassment than that he had no time for romantic love.

Besides, it says in Matthew 5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the laws to the letter and one of the commandments, the first ever given by the way, was to get married and
father children. At his time, a young man would rarely pass twenty as a single man. If nothing, at 30 and still single, he would be dealing with a lot rolling eyes and suspecting grins. Big grins like this one .

Ben

 

[Charity]

I understand you Charity, the point you present in the first paragraph is perfectly valid. It could have been a brother of Jesus', and since Joseph was dead by then, Jesus could have very well been the one in charge.

But this of Jesus, a man at age 30, rooming around with twelve guys for three years with no time for any personal involvement with a woman, is a hard pill to swallow.
Had not the man hormones raving inside, shouting for expression at the arms of a lovely woman? I think that to deny Jesus the best of life to a man at his age, would
say more in terms of embarrassment than that he had no time for romantic love.

Besides, it says in Matthew 5:17-19 that he came to fulfill the laws to the letter and one of the commandments, the first ever given by the way, was to get married and
father children. At his time, a young man would rarely pass twenty as a single man. If nothing, at 30 and still single, he would be dealing with a lot rolling eyes and suspecting grins. Big grins like this one .

Ben

Are you speaking for Jesus on this subject or are you speaking from your own experience?
I just thought that with having to walk and it could take days from one destination to another, the teaching, the sermons that Jesus delivered to the crowd and all the other things He knew he had to do along with the fact that His time was going to be short, I just don't see him as having the same thoughts as most of the young men His age. When He was 12 there He was in the Temple being about His Father's business. He apparently was talking about His heavenly Father, since He wasn't found in the carpenter's shop, but in the snyagogue. I think his priorities were just so different than the other people of His age group. The Bible teaches that God's way are not our ways and for us to come out and be a separate people, don't you think that the Son of God would have lived a separated life from the normal person?

These are just my thoughts though and I know you have your own ideas, but this just makes sense to me that Jesus would have been so very different. Perhaps it is difficult for us to comprehend that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, He was made special for this task, groomed and polished by His Father. His birth, His life, His thoughts they were not His own, but for the will of His Father.
:blowkiss: Peace

 

[gnostic]

I still believed that there are 2 different Mary. Mary of Bethany should not be confused with Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene). The distinction between the two clear.

Mary of Bethany is often referred to as being sister of Lazarus and Martha.

Mary Magdalene on other hand is never linked to Lazarus and Martha.

And apart from the Resurrection, the narrative never showed Jesus speaking to Mary Magdalene. But obvious they have other contacts, like Jesus exorcising 7 demons out of her. But at no time have it showed them having intimate relationship.

Mary of Bethany, on the other hand, clearly was infatuated with Jesus, like when her sister rebuked her for shirking her chore, and two out of 4 gospels had linked her washing Jesus' feet with her hair in Bethany (not Capernaum).

And none of the Mary is ever named in the wedding in Cana.

I still think your theory about the wedding is still faulty, as well as the two Marys are one and the same person.

 

[Ben Masada]

I still believed that there are 2 different Mary. Mary of Bethany should not be confused with Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalene). The distinction between the two clear.

+++Ben: - Matthew says that the Mary at the tomb of Jesus was the Magdalene. If she was different from the sister of Martha and Lazarus, where was the other one? (Mat.
28:1) After the wedding Jesus passed to live in Bethany with Mary Magdalene.

Mary of Bethany is often referred to as being sister of Lazarus and Martha.
Mary Magdalene on other hand is never linked to Lazarus and Martha.

+++Ben: - How do you know?

And apart from the Resurrection, the narrative never showed Jesus speaking to Mary Magdalene. But obvious they have other contacts, like Jesus exorcising 7 demons out of her. But at no time have it showed them having intimate relationship.

+++Ben: - You have all the right in the world to your opinion.

Mary of Bethany, on the other hand, clearly was infatuated with Jesus, like when her sister rebuked her for shirking her chore, and two out of 4 gospels had linked her washing Jesus' feet with her hair in Bethany (not Capernaum).

+++Ben: - I still believe that both Mary's were but one and the same.

And none of the Mary is ever named in the wedding in Cana.

+++Ben: - That's natural according to tradition. The Bride was never to be mentioned in public, like in the West.

I still think your theory about the wedding is still faulty, as well as the two Marys are one and the same person.

+++Ben: - And probably you are right, considering that no one is perfect.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Are you speaking for Jesus on this subject or are you speaking from your own experience?
I just thought that with having to walk and it could take days from one destination to another, the teaching, the sermons that Jesus delivered to the crowd and all the other things He knew he had to do along with the fact that His time was going to be short, I just don't see him as having the same thoughts as most of the young men His age. When He was 12 there He was in the Temple being about His Father's business. He apparently was talking about His heavenly Father, since He wasn't found in the carpenter's shop, but in the snyagogue. I think his priorities were just so different than the other people of His age group. The Bible teaches that God's way are not our ways and for us to come out and be a separate people, don't you think that the Son of God would have lived a separated life from the normal person?

These are just my thoughts though and I know you have your own ideas, but this just makes sense to me that Jesus would have been so very different. Perhaps it is difficult for us to comprehend that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, He was made special for this task, groomed and polished by His Father. His birth, His life, His thoughts they were not His own, but for the will of His Father.
:blowkiss: Peace

No Charity, I am speaking for men in general, and Jesus was also a man. And as far as biology is concerned, no different from the rest of us.

Jesus was not the only ambulant Rabbi of the First Century. There were many. It was the custom of the time to gather 12 disciples around them
to teach Torah and preach around with the purpose to revive Judaism in the hearts of the People. It was because of that custom that Rome established
a policy to arrest only the head of any subversive group and crucify him, so that the group would naturally dissipate. Many ended up on the cross, according
to Flavius Josephus. Jesus was not the only one.


You mention Jesus at 12 years old busy at the Synagogue doing the work of "his Father." This was in Jerusalem and they lived in Nazareth in the North. They had
come down for Jesus' Bar Mitzvah. And what Jesus was doing was studying Torah with the Priests. That's what many do today in preparation for Bar Mitzvah. The rest
about Jesus is only dramatization.

"The son of God!" Do you know where this expression comes from in Israel? From the many children born as a result of the rapes of young Jewish ladies by the Roman
soldiers in the First Century. Since the unfortunate mothers could not be condemned for being promiscuous, the religious leaders forbade the People to ostracize the
children as mamzerim or ba$tards. But they grew up with the epithet of "sons of God" for not being able to be reported to a definite father. It would be much less
embarrassing to have Jesus as a biological son of Joseph's instead.

Ben

 

[Charity]

Ben we remain far apart on our beliefs on this one. I just can't see Jesus as being any other way than How He is portrayed in the scripture. :cover: I do see what you are saying, but I can't agree. Thanks for your explanation anyway...

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben we remain far apart on our beliefs on this one. I just can't see Jesus as being any other way than How He is portrayed in the scripture. :cover: I do see what you are saying, but I can't agree. Thanks for your explanation anyway...

You are welcome Charity. I am sorry if I seem to be forcing the issue. I promise to
back up. If I break my promise it will be probably because promises are made to be
broken. But I'll try not to. By the way, do you have some chocolate chip cookies? I
feel like having one now with a hot cup of tea.

Ben :drool:

 

[Charity]

You are welcome Charity. I am sorry if I seem to be forcing the issue. I promise to
back up. If I break my promise it will be probably because promises are made to be
broken. But I'll try not to. By the way, do you have some chocolate chip cookies? I
feel like having one now with a hot cup of tea.

Ben :drool:

Ben sweetie, I am more than glad to share my cookies with you....Don't back up too far, we will lose momentum and I enjoy a good challenge. You wouldn't break a promise to me would you?

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben sweetie, I am more than glad to share my cookies with you....Don't back up too far, we will lose momentum and I enjoy a good challenge. You wouldn't break a promise to me would you?

No Charity, I wouldn't. You are just sweet enough to the point not to.

Do you know something? You make too hard on men not to love you.

Ben

 

[gnostic]

+++Ben: - Matthew says that the Mary at the tomb of Jesus was the Magdalene. If she was different from the sister of Martha and Lazarus, where was the other one? (Mat.
28:1) After the wedding Jesus passed to live in Bethany with Mary Magdalene.

Don't know. She (of Bethany) is never mentioned again, after the event in Bethany. Mary of Bethany is absence during the crucifixion and resurrection.

+++Ben: - How do you know?

Well, if you have read the gospels, then you will see no link with Mary Magdalene with Lazarus and Martha. Only Mary of Bethany is linked with her siblings.

Do you see any such link?

+++Ben: - You have all the right in the world to your opinion.

The only real intimate relationship being expressed with Jesus and Mary Magdalene, comes from the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" (where Peter was jealous that Jesus always seen kissing Mary) and the "Gospel of Philip" (where she was seen as "companion" of Jesus) from the Gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi.

There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

This 2nd passage in Philip bears some resemblance to that in Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

In another Gnostic texts (Pistis Sophia), Mary Magdalene and John were referred to as virgins, and to be his best disciples (making them his favourites), sitting on the right and left of him.

"On this account I have said unto you aforetime: 'Where I shall be, there will be also my twelve ministers.' But Mary Magdalene and John, the virgin, will tower over all my disciples and over all men who shall receive the mysteries in the Ineffable. And they will be on my right and on my left. And I am they, and they are I.

+++Ben: - That's natural according to tradition. The Bride was never to be mentioned in public, like in the West.

And when do the bridegroom needs an invitation to his own wedding?