The wedding of jesus

[arthra]

Ben,

No stones here but where did you get this:

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.

If you are referring to Notovich he was not an archaeologist but a traveller around Ladakh who allegedly claimed to have found a "Gospel" in the monastery there.. which no one else has independently verified.

Also if you mean the alleged tomb in Lahore or Srinagar there is no "Sign" of David there.. there is a legend that it is the tomb of a "Yus Asaf" and there are supposed to be some footprints in stone there..

So what are you talking about?

- Art

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben,

No stones here but where did you get this:

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.

If you are referring to Notovich he was not an archaeologist but a traveller around Ladakh who allegedly claimed to have found a "Gospel" in the monastery there.. which no one else has independently verified.

Also if you mean the alleged tomb in Lahore or Srinagar there is no "Sign" of David there.. there is a legend that it is the tomb of a "Yus Asaf" and there are supposed to be some footprints in stone there..

So what are you talking about?

- Art

I read about this incident in the National Library in Tel-Aviv. I'll be back to double
check, and to get down the book references. Sorry, if I can't give you now the details.

Ben

 

[Muffled]

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

This is speculation also and just as improbable because it would be reasonable to have that reported. The anonymity of the bride and bridegroom infers that they are not important. The important elements of the story are the relationship of Jesus to His mother and the first miracle of Jesus.

Jesus overcame the world. He had hunger but the temptation to turn rocks into bread was ovecome. With man this is impossible but with God all things are possible.

However Jesus is not just a man but is God in the flesh also. What man considers important is not the same thing God considers important.

That amounts to a blasphemous grin and unworthy of a man's perception of God.

The Qu'ran clears up the fuzzy thinking on this by saying that God does not have partners. And if that were not enough for those who claimed He had offspring it says God does not have sons.

The Gnostic Gospels are just as speculative as the OP and are inherently in error because they contradict Hebraic scripture. THe Christian Gospels are in harmony with Hebraic scripture and the Qu'ran.

 

[Ben Masada]

This is speculation also and just as improbable because it would be reasonable to have that reported. The anonymity of the bride and bridegroom infers that they are not important. The important elements of the story are the relationship of Jesus to His mother and the first miracle of Jesus.

+++Ben: But a very intelligent speculation based on evidences. The anonymity of the bridegroom yes, because at that time it was impolite to mention her name in conversations, unless among women only. Regarding his first miracle, his mother had never seen him make one to go to him for the lack of wine. Then, why she? Because she was the host of the party, a position that the mother of the bride should be acting by. And why he, if he was not the bridegroom? The responsibility to provide the wine was for the groom. He could have told her to take her complaint to
the groom. Nevertheless, he acted upon the need because he was indeed the one.


Jesus overcame the world. He had hunger but the temptation to turn rocks into bread was ovecome. With man this is impossible but with God all things are possible.

+++Ben: Do you know where he was tempted to turn rocks into bread? In the desert if you want to believe the other gospel writers and reject John's with his
wedding in Cana. Both events could not have happened at the same time.


However Jesus is not just a man but is God in the flesh also. What man considers important is not the same thing God considers important.

+++Ben: Jesus was Jewish and there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology in Judaism. Jesus was just a man just like any other Jew.


That amounts to a blasphemous grin and unworthy of a man's perception of God.

+++Ben: And your assertion that Jesus was God amonts to idolatry.


The Qu'ran clears up the fuzzy thinking on this by saying that God does not have partners. And if that were not enough for those who claimed He had offspring it says God does not have sons.

+++Ben: You tell the Christians this not me. I know that God does not have sons
in the mythological Greek sense that Christians claim.

The Gnostic Gospels are just as speculative as the OP and are inherently in error because they contradict Hebraic scripture. THe Christian Gospels are in harmony with Hebraic scripture and the Qu'ran.

+++Ben: I haven't taken my finds from Gnostic Gospels but from the NT itself. And this that you say that the Christian Gospels are in harmony with Hebraic Scripture, you must have meant it as a joke and I thank you for the laughs.:clap

Ben

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is speculation also and just as improbable because it would be reasonable to have that reported. The anonymity of the bride and bridegroom infers that they are not important. The important elements of the story are the relationship of Jesus to His mother and the first miracle of Jesus.

Jesus overcame the world. He had hunger but the temptation to turn rocks into bread was ovecome. With man this is impossible but with God all things are possible.

However Jesus is not just a man but is God in the flesh also. What man considers important is not the same thing God considers important.

That amounts to a blasphemous grin and unworthy of a man's perception of God.

The Qu'ran clears up the fuzzy thinking on this by saying that God does not have partners. And if that were not enough for those who claimed He had offspring it says God does not have sons.

The Gnostic Gospels are just as speculative as the OP and are inherently in error because they contradict Hebraic scripture. THe Christian Gospels are in harmony with Hebraic scripture and the Qu'ran.

I don't know where to start other than to say...most of this jibberish is just untrue...:sarcastic

 

[Ben Masada]

I don't know where to start other than to say...most of this jibberish is just untrue...:sarcastic

I can see that you indeed don't know how to start, because you started from the end.

Ben

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can see that you indeed don't know how to start, because you started from the end.

Ben

Actually, my first post on this was back in post #263 where I gave my opinion on the matter and I responded a few pages after that.

Muffeld believes that with his god all things are possible and I think that is incorrect.

Muffled's intrpertation of the Life of the biblical Yeshua is that he himself is God in the flesh and this is quite contrary to what the biblical Yeshua taught.

Muffeld is a different kind of trinitarian. One who has no problem quoting from the quran even though it is not accepted amomgst his collegues.

In his post he says that "THe Christian Gospels are in harmony with Hebraic scripture and the Qu'ran."

You, being Jewish, can you confirm his assertion? I'm quite sure you don't. I'm not a muslim but I can assure you that christianity nor its gospels are in harmony with the quran because as he says....the quran says God has no partners..but it also says God was not begotten nor does he beget (Surah 112). So we know this is not in harmony with christian gospel. Additionally, his view of Yeshua being God is certainly NOT in accordance with the quran because here's what the quran says...DIRECTLY about this issue....

Quran (Arberry) Translation
5:72
They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' For the Messiah said, 'Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.

Well who is this in reference to? Yes that's right..(Christians)...NOT Jews. Who was Mary's son? That's right...Yeshua. So..NO.... Christian gospel (the way christians interpret them) are not in harmony with the quran.

Or even these passage;

Quran
Surah 17:111
Surah 23:91
Surah 25:1-2

If you notice I don't jump all around here. This is laid out to show you that from beginning to end of the quran the message is basically the same and repeated....that God has no son, no wife, no partners, was not born nor was or is he responsible for being the father of any one nor is Yeshua to be considered God or God's partner. NONE of these things are in "Harmony" like Muffeld suggest. In fact the quran is quite stern in its condemnation to how the christians view Yeshua or God.

So I have a pretty good understanding it's just I simply disagreed with Muffeld and over the past few years here on RF...it's not been the first time and I suspect it won't be the last.

To the OP....Did Yeshua get married? Possibly. As Jewish laws and customs go...he should have been. One of the biggest problem with the "Christian Gospels" is that the church has removed any scrolls that they deemed unworthy to be compiled in the book (bible). So one may never know if Yeshua really got married. Is the marriage at Cana describing Yeshua's wedding?????? I think it's possible and that's why I gave my opinion here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1262561-post264.html

I think you and I are on the same page as indicated here;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1262885-post269.html

 

[Ben Masada]

Actually, my first post on this was back in post #263 where I gave my opinion on the matter and I responded a few pages after that.

Muffeld believes that with his god all things are possible and I think that is incorrect.

Muffled's intrpertation of the Life of the biblical Yeshua is that he himself is God in the flesh and this is quite contrary to what the biblical Yeshua taught.

Muffeld is a different kind of trinitarian. One who has no problem quoting from the quran even though it is not accepted amomgst his collegues.

In his post he says that "THe Christian Gospels are in harmony with Hebraic scripture and the Qu'ran."

You, being Jewish, can you confirm his assertion? I'm quite sure you don't. I'm not a muslim but I can assure you that christianity nor its gospels are in harmony with the quran because as he says....the quran says God has no partners..but it also says God was not begotten nor does he beget (Surah 112). So we know this is not in harmony with christian gospel. Additionally, his view of Yeshua being God is certainly NOT in accordance with the quran because here's what the quran says...DIRECTLY about this issue....

Quran (Arberry) Translation
5:72
They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Messiah, Mary's son.' For the Messiah said, 'Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.

Well who is this in reference to? Yes that's right..(Christians)...NOT Jews. Who was Mary's son? That's right...Yeshua. So..NO.... Christian gospel (the way christians interpret them) are not in harmony with the quran.

Or even these passage;

Quran
Surah 17:111
Surah 23:91
Surah 25:1-2

If you notice I don't jump all around here. This is laid out to show you that from beginning to end of the quran the message is basically the same and repeated....that God has no son, no wife, no partners, was not born nor was or is he responsible for being the father of any one nor is Yeshua to be considered God or God's partner. NONE of these things are in "Harmony" like Muffeld suggest. In fact the quran is quite stern in its condemnation to how the christians view Yeshua or God.

So I have a pretty good understanding it's just I simply disagreed with Muffeld and over the past few years here on RF...it's not been the first time and I suspect it won't be the last.

To the OP....Did Yeshua get married? Possibly. As Jewish laws and customs go...he should have been. One of the biggest problem with the "Christian Gospels" is that the church has removed any scrolls that they deemed unworthy to be compiled in the book (bible). So one may never know if Yeshua really got married. Is the marriage at Cana describing Yeshua's wedding?????? I think it's possible and that's why I gave my opinion here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1262561-post264.html

I think you and I are on the same page as indicated here;
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1262885-post269.html

You are right when you were sure that I would not be able to confirm Muffeld's assertion. And the idea that Jesus was God is repugnant. Really Greek Mythology.
Jesus was Jewish and there is no such a thing in Judaism.

Yes, you are right again about being one of the biggest problems with Christianity, the fact that in 327 CE when the "sacred" writings were selected for the
Canon of the NT they eliminated too many of what existed. There was the Gospel of Barnabas for instance that he wrote after he broke away from Paul after a long
old friendship, telling the real biographical story of Jesus in a rebuttal against Paul
for what he did in the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch, which caused Barnabas to lose his credibility before the Nazarene leadership in Jerusalem.

Ben

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You are right when you were sure that I would not be able to confirm Muffeld's assertion. And the idea that Jesus was God is repugnant. Really Greek Mythology.
Jesus was Jewish and there is no such a thing in Judaism.

Yes and the strange thing is when you look at these "Christan Gospels", especially Matthew, Mark, Luke and John there is no trace of Yeshua being God. He never taught his followers he was nor did they think he was. Paul spearheaded this god/man concept but even he flip flopped in what he thought about Yeshua especially given he never met the man nor ever heard him speak. His so called vision on the road is suspect at best and in my opinion might even be a lie. His story and multiple inconsistent renderings of his vision to various people rings of "Snake oil salesman" (con artist).

Yes, you are right again about being one of the biggest problems with Christianity, the fact that in 327 CE when the "sacred" writings were selected for the
Canon of the NT they eliminated too many of what existed. There was the Gospel of Barnabas for instance that he wrote after he broke away from Paul after a long
old friendship, telling the real biographical story of Jesus in a rebuttal against Paul
for what he did in the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch, which caused Barnabas to lose his credibility before the Nazarene leadership in Jerusalem.

Yep. And other gospels such as that of Judas will never be in because it tells a different story as well.

 

[Ben Masada]

His so called vision on the road is suspect at best and in my opinion might even be a lie.

+++ Ben: I confirm your opinion that Paul's legendary encounter with Jesus on the Road to Damascus could very well be a lie because, three years afterwards he showed up in Jerusalem trying to join the Sect of the Nazarenes and was sent back
to Tarsus where he belonged. The Apostles, doubtlessly, suspected that he was either lying or derange. They knew where Jesus had gone to when he left Israel with Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. And Damascus had not been the place.

Yep. And other gospels such as that of Judas will never be in because it tells a different story as well.

+++Ben: And the gospel of Mary Magdalene. Not that she wrote anything. But there
was "The Gospel according to Mary Magdalene," telling the truth about whose wedding
was that in Cana; and a lot about Mary's life prior and after she married Jesus.

Ben :shout

 

[Muffled]

Ben

+++Ben: But a very intelligent speculation based on evidences. The anonymity of the bridegroom yes, because at that time it was impolite to mention her name in conversations, unless among women only. Regarding his first miracle, his mother had never seen him make one to go to him for the lack of wine. Then, why she? Because she was the host of the party, a position that the mother of the bride should be acting by. And why he, if he was not the bridegroom? The responsibility to provide the wine was for the groom. He could have told her to take her complaint to
the groom. Nevertheless, he acted upon the need because he was indeed the one.

Your claim of evidence is nothing more than more speculation.

Even if this made sense it still would not be Biblical evidence.

This is speculation. This miracle is the first recorded miracle but that does not mean that Mary doesn't have some idea of who Jesus is.

This is speculation. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Mary is the host or what relationship she had to the brde or groom.

The scriptural reference is clear on this. He acted because His mother asked Him to act.

I can make up fairy stories too by making speculations that aren't God's word (My adding to scripture which is proscribed in Deut. as you have stated elsewhere). Here is my story: Mary had a daughter getting married (daughters are rarely mentioned) at the grooms house. Jesus should have been there but as usual He was doing His Father's business so he had to be summoned to the wedding. As the eldest brother he would be sought out to provide wine.

None of what I said is scriptural but it makes as good a story as your fiction.

 

[Ben Masada]

+++Ben: But a very intelligent speculation based on evidences. The anonymity of the bridegroom yes, because at that time it was impolite to mention her name in conversations, unless among women only. Regarding his first miracle, his mother had never seen him make one to go to him for the lack of wine. Then, why she? Because she was the host of the party, a position that the mother of the bride should be acting by. And why he, if he was not the bridegroom? The responsibility to provide the wine was for the groom. He could have told her to take her complaint to
the groom. Nevertheless, he acted upon the need because he was indeed the one.

Your claim of evidence is nothing more than more speculation.

Even if this made sense it still would not be Biblical evidence.

+++Ben: In that case, have you dropped the claim that the NT is Scriptures? That's where I pick up the evidences I need.

This is speculation. This miracle is the first recorded miracle but that does not mean that Mary doesn't have some idea of who Jesus is.


+++Ben: You speak in the present as if Mary and Jesus are still among us. Are you aware of it?

This is speculation. Nowhere in scripture does it say that Mary is the host or what relationship she had to the brde or groom.


+++Ben: No! Why would she give orders to the servants? (John 2:5)

The scriptural reference is clear on this. He acted because His mother asked Him to act.


+++Ben: She did not ask him to act upon anything. She simply said, "They have no more wine," as if he were none other but the groom. (John 2:3)

I can make up fairy stories too by making speculations that aren't God's word (My adding to scripture which is proscribed in Deut. as you have stated elsewhere). Here is my story: Mary had a daughter getting married (daughters are rarely mentioned) at the grooms house. Jesus should have been there but as usual He was doing His Father's business so he had to be summoned to the wedding. As the eldest brother he would be sought out to provide wine.

+++Ben: Congratulations! You too have a good imagination. However, I could accept your point well made, but under the condition that you explain to me why was Jesus transforming water into wine in Cana while the Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke was being tempted to transform stones into bread in the desert where he had gone to for 40 days. Mind you that the wedding in Cana was three days after his baptism by John in the Jordan River. And for the other Jesus, this was taken into the desert immediately after getting off the river.

None of what I said is scriptural but it makes as good a story as your fiction.

Ben :shout

 

[wanda jane]

Did Jesus really married Mary Magdalene? There were also other women for example Joanna or Salome in his company. So why the poor Mary?

 

[Ben Masada]

Did Jesus really married Mary Magdalene? There were also other women for example Joanna or Salome in his company. So why the poor Mary?

There were indeed other women, most of them married but not of a constant presence in Jesus' comapany. They would help Jesus financially by a lot through Mary Magdalene. Mary yes, was a constant picture in Jesus' group for being his beloved disciple, since they got married until the crucifixion on the Calvary.

Did Jesus really marry Mary Magdalene? Yes, otherwise he could never be called a Rabbi. A single man in Israel, especially at that time, could never be a Rabbi. And
Jesus could never have married other than the one he really loved.

Ben :clap

 

[IF_u_knew]

I am actually amazed by the OP. I have had much the same progression of thoughts but kept them to myself because of the vehement replies over here if one were to suggest this as being a great possibility. It was not until my sister came to me with close to the same conclusion that I began to suggest this to others to see what they thought. Sure enough though, it was met with great opposition and in fact, have lost some fellowship over here because of this and other thoughts I have that seem to be obvious ways of thinking for one who is really looking for more than what makes them feel good or what fits their comfortable point of view.

I, too, think the wedding that Jesus was at in the bible was his own. It was because of the customs of the Jewish people that this line of thought hit me and would not release me. I don't see why this is such a taboo idea amongst people other than the fact that christians have the wrong view of Jesus and what his purpose was. I find marriage to be a beautiful thing and would think no less of Jesus for having done so and in fact, would find it to be a beautiful love between him and his beloved. Although, my view of him is hardly the mystical born of a virgin view either.

Glad that you had the guts to share despite the harsh backlash you may have incurred (have yet to read the replies... was excited to see that I am not the only one who has come to this same line of thinking; but am going to read replies now).

 

[IF_u_knew]

well, sheesh! Although some on this thread are able to think for themselves, it does seem that the better part of such can only be told what to think. First off, we (or those of us with a brain in that skull of ours) can see that there is much that is false in the new and thus we are left to speculate with reason and of course, the guidance of the Old testament and the history pertaining to the custom of the jews.

I often am ashamed to admit my christian upbringing because to believe what is taught in the religion, one must take a dumbed down leap of faith and throw out the rational thought process altogether; then again, I was one of those who were often in trouble for calling into question the obvious contradictions; not accepting Paul as an authority of scriptures (obviously he was not); and studying to the best I could Judaism and trying to draw some resolution on my own to these questions in my mind.

But I can, having been raised in this country, see how others would conform their beliefs to just accept what it is they are told to accept. To oppose is to be isolated and lost, as I have well discovered... I guess in the end for me, isolation was ideal than to conform to something that made LITTLE sense. I applaud the OP for having the courage to state what he did and feel comforted that I have not been the only one to have these same thoughts progress in my mind the more I have studied. Over and out

 

[Ben Masada]

I am actually amazed by the OP. I have had much the same progression of thoughts but kept them to myself because of the vehement replies over here if one were to suggest this as being a great possibility. It was not until my sister came to me with close to the same conclusion that I began to suggest this to others to see what they thought. Sure enough though, it was met with great opposition and in fact, have lost some fellowship over here because of this and other thoughts I have that seem to be obvious ways of thinking for one who is really looking for more than what makes them feel good or what fits their comfortable point of view.

I, too, think the wedding that Jesus was at in the bible was his own. It was because of the customs of the Jewish people that this line of thought hit me and would not release me. I don't see why this is such a taboo idea amongst people other than the fact that christians have the wrong view of Jesus and what his purpose was. I find marriage to be a beautiful thing and would think no less of Jesus for having done so and in fact, would find it to be a beautiful love between him and his beloved. Although, my view of him is hardly the mystical born of a virgin view either.

Glad that you had the guts to share despite the harsh backlash you may have incurred (have yet to read the replies... was excited to see that I am not the only one who has come to this same line of thinking; but am going to read replies now).

Shalom If_u_knew, this post of yours was a comfort to my soul. I have found out by
now that you are a Christian. The fact rather enhances the importance of your view
about the fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I have been sturying the
NT for about ten years. This fact in the life of Jesus has caused such an impression on
me that my respect for him only grew. :clap

Ben: <*)))><

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Shalom If_u_knew, this post of yours was a comfort to my soul. I have found out by
now that you are a Christian. The fact rather enhances the importance of your view
about the fact that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I have been sturying the
NT for about ten years. This fact in the life of Jesus caused such an impression on
me that my respect for him only grew. :clap

Ben: <*)))><

I suppose that we could make up a lot of stuff about Jesus that would increase our respect for him.

 

[Ben Masada]

I suppose that we could make up a lot of stuff about Jesus that would increase our respect for him.

I guess the answer is YES as long as our making up of whatever we want is based on
the evidences down on the pages of the NT.

Ben: <*)))><

 

[IF_u_knew]

Well, please, considering today's definition of "christian", let's be careful how we throw around that label "christian." I am hoping that you are not defining me to fit in with what has been called "christianity" these days and that you have a different idea that fits more in line with G-d; otherwise *I* will be the one who is not at all comforted by this declaration.