The wedding of jesus

[Ben Masada]

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.

Now, you have brought back into my mind that hard-to-leave question mark.
Then, "IF_u_knew". How can I know if you only leave me in suspense?

Ben: <*)))><

 

[IF_u_knew]

:sad: I am trying to do no such thing. Christianity as it is known here: 1. belief in a virgin birth (not me) 2. belief in whatever a man from a pulpit tells you to believe (not me) 3. a faith that does not truly recognize G-d, but rather looks for how G-d can fill any need whether that be financial, health, love, etc (although, I KNOW G-d is capable of giving a person their desires, to seek those things are not part of what I am about.. I am after HIS love and HIS favor for its sake and nothing more. I KNOW He will protect and provide for me as long as I worship Him in spirit and in truth, but even if these things were not a part of it, I would still worship Him and seek Him). 4. Christianity here is based on the teachings of Paul and for as long as I can remember, something does not set right in me concerning Paul. I sense an arrogant manipulator. I HOPE that I am not speaking against a man of G-d, but something inside me tells me I am not. 5. And even more recently and disturbing is a belief amongst christians in an obviously false manifestation of G-d. It is a manifestation that I saw and wish I could erase from my mind. It LITERALLY made me physical ill to see it and I cried for days and still cry just thinking about it.

Now, why would I want to be associated with any of the above points?

 

[Ben Masada]

:sad: I am trying to do no such thing. Christianity as it is known here: 1. belief in a virgin birth (not me) 2. belief in whatever a man from a pulpit tells you to believe (not me) 3. a faith that does not truly recognize G-d, but rather looks for how G-d can fill any need whether that be financial, health, love, etc (although, I KNOW G-d is capable of giving a person their desires, to seek those things are not part of what I am about.. I am after HIS love and HIS favor for its sake and nothing more. I KNOW He will protect and provide for me as long as I worship Him in spirit and in truth, but even if these things were not a part of it, I would still worship Him and seek Him). 4. Christianity here is based on the teachings of Paul and for as long as I can remember, something does not set right in me concerning Paul. I sense an arrogant manipulator. I HOPE that I am not speaking against a man of G-d, but something inside me tells me I am not. 5. And even more recently and disturbing is a belief amongst christians in an obviously false manifestation of G-d. It is a manifestation that I saw and wish I could erase from my mind. It LITERALLY made me physical ill to see it and I cried for days and still cry just thinking about it.

Now, why would I want to be associated with any of the above points?

Welcome home my dear, because I am with you 101 percent. All of the above + one.

Ben: <*)))>< :clap

 

[challupa]

:sad: I am trying to do no such thing. Christianity as it is known here: 1. belief in a virgin birth (not me) 2. belief in whatever a man from a pulpit tells you to believe (not me) 3. a faith that does not truly recognize G-d, but rather looks for how G-d can fill any need whether that be financial, health, love, etc (although, I KNOW G-d is capable of giving a person their desires, to seek those things are not part of what I am about.. I am after HIS love and HIS favor for its sake and nothing more. I KNOW He will protect and provide for me as long as I worship Him in spirit and in truth, but even if these things were not a part of it, I would still worship Him and seek Him). 4. Christianity here is based on the teachings of Paul and for as long as I can remember, something does not set right in me concerning Paul. I sense an arrogant manipulator. I HOPE that I am not speaking against a man of G-d, but something inside me tells me I am not. 5. And even more recently and disturbing is a belief amongst christians in an obviously false manifestation of G-d. It is a manifestation that I saw and wish I could erase from my mind. It LITERALLY made me physical ill to see it and I cried for days and still cry just thinking about it.

Now, why would I want to be associated with any of the above points?

You might be interested in this website. ExploringOptions.ca - Home You think along the same lines so thought it might interest you.

 

[Ben Masada]

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

That's another beautiful trait of your characater: You are ready for isolation if
comformity is the only option. That's a Jewish trait if you ask me. As I can see,
there is a lot of Jewish in you.

Ben: <*)))>< :yes:

 

[IF_u_knew]

Welcome home my dear, because I am with you 101 percent. All of the above + one.

Ben: <*)))>< :clap

I would love to hear your +1. I actually could go on and on with that list. 6. Hypocrisy; oh...

Ya know, not so long ago (and yes, kind of off topic ... sorry, but I must say it), I was watching a video of a (mock) "revival" going on here in the states headed by a VIOLENT preacher (was appalled by the violence he attributed to the name of G-d.. kicking an old lady in the face, running and jump kicking a man in the stomach, punching, etc.. but I digress and thus..) and in the middle of his sermon he said god (bc this WAS NOT G-d) reminded him just then of something in the Scriptures that he HAD to speak to the people in the congregation. I already knew by this point that this was going to be "good." He said it was something in John (no other references for the ppl to check and judge whether he was speaking the truth or not) and that it said "if you love 'god,' he will manifest himself to you."
I felt, again... literally ill as the ignorant crowd began to applaud and shouts of amen arose from their mouths.

I knew immediately that this was a twisting of John 14: 21 which says "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Funny how the important elements are always left out of "feel good' messages. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, HE IT IS that loveth me: and *HE THAT* loveth me (we have the conditions laid out as to what we must do to love him)..." that is who the Father will love and that is who Jesus says he will love and will manifest himself to. The condition is ALWAYS left out in these "great revivals" w/all their oppressive manifestations.


Psalm 4: 1-3 :shout

 

[IF_u_knew]

That's another beautiful trait of your characater: You are ready for isolation if
comformity is the only option. That's a Jewish trait if you ask me. As I can see,
there is a lot of Jewish in you.

Ben: <*)))>< :yes:

What a compliment! I am very humbled that you would say this.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

You know....I watched that movie (Bloodline)....O Yes....I finally was a able to procure a copy...ehhh...emmm!! We'll just leave it at that...

The important thing is not how I got it but that I watched it and I can say I was impressed. I like the earlier parts of the movie that showed the stain glass windows in other churches of the marriage of Yeshua and him holding hands side by side......

As we discussed earlier....I think the wedding at Cana is the wedding of Yeshua. One reason I think this is it's hard to get out of my mind why Mary (his mother) would be stressing over a wedding if she was merely a guest....

 

[Ben Masada]

You know....I watched that movie (Bloodline)....O Yes....I finally was a able to procure a copy...ehhh...emmm!! We'll just leave it at that...

The important thing is not how I got it but that I watched it and I can say I was impressed. I like the earlier parts of the movie that showed the stain glass windows in other churches of the marriage of Yeshua and him holding hands side by side......

As we discussed earlier....I think the wedding at Cana is the wedding of Yeshua. One reason I think this is it's hard to get out of my mind why Mary (his mother) would be stressing over a wedding if she was merely a guest....

Keep going Penguin, you are on the right track. When I got married in Israel with a very traditional Yemanite Jewish lady,
whose parents were strictly observant of old traditions, I was reminded that, according to tradition, the wine must be supplied by the bridegroom.
I had to comply. At Cana, when they were running out of wine, instead of going to report to the bridegroom if he had not been Jesus, Mary went straight to Jesus.
It's only obvious that Jesus was the bridegroom.

Ben: <*)))>< )(

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Keep going Penguin, you are on the right track. When I got married in Israel with a very traditional Yemanite Jewish lady,
whose parents were strictly observant of old traditions, I was reminded that, according to tradition, the wine must be supplied by the bridegroom.
I had to comply. At Cana, when they were running out of wine, instead of going to report to the bridegroom if he had not been Jesus, Mary went straight to Jesus.
It's only obvious that Jesus was the bridegroom.

Ben: <*)))>< )(

The problem with that story is that it is a little vague.

I've tried to reconcile that the story is not about the wedding of Yeshua but some one else. The problem I have with that is that the position of Jesus' mother is of a hostess and not a guest. She appears to bark out orders. This is not something a guest would do but definately something a member of the wedding party would do. If anyone knows anything about weddings...be they Jewish ones or christian ones...you KNOW for a FACT that the mother of the bride and the groom posistion themselves as hostess of the wedding and not as a guest.

Also the story being a short one has to be anylyzed line by line. If we are to believe this is not the weeding of Yeshua then what we find is that the name of the bride, the groom and even their parents are completely left out. This seems unusual considering the argument by most is that Yeshua, his mother and the disciples (and probably a few other friends of theirs) were "invited" to this wedding. It would appear that in order to simply be invited they'd have to be known by the bride, groom and/or family. I would think a brief mention of this family would have been mentioned...but that's just me I guess.


It seems there's a lot left out of the conversation in verses 4 and 5. Mary (his mother) tells him the wine is out and he tells her..why is that my concern. My time is not yet.

But then she says...whatever he tells you to do, you do it. It would appear she knew what her sons' role was in this wedding. I think she just merely wanted him to know the wine was out and the people were going to be upset at his wedding. I don't think she thought for a moment he was going to turn water into wine.

If verses 8, 9, and 10 are not in reference to Yeshua then the groom of the wedding took credit for providing the best tasting wine even though he didn't.

John 2:8-10

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]8 he said, "Dip some out and take it to the master of ceremonies." So they followed his instructions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]9 When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]10 "Usually a host serves the best wine first," he said. "Then, when everyone is full and doesn't care, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!"[/FONT]

It is certainly plausable to gather from this encounter that even though the MC "didn't know where the good wine came from" he thought he knew Who provided it so he called Yeshua over anyway, seeing as though he was the groom, to congradulate him on saving the best for last.

The MC along with the hostest (Mary), after checking and dealing with the guest believed all the wine was gone. When more wine was given to the MC he could have been thinking Yeshua was holding out...saving the best for last and called him over to praise him on it.

I think the man got marrie. What's wrong with a married Yeshua anyway??

 

[Ben Masada]

The problem with that story is that it is a little vague.

I've tried to reconcile that the story is not about the wedding of Yeshua but some one else. The problem I have with that is that the position of Jesus' mother is of a hostess and not a guest. She appears to bark out orders. This is not something a guest would do but definately something a member of the wedding party would do. If anyone knows anything about weddings...be they Jewish ones or christian ones...you KNOW for a FACT that the mother of the bride and the groom posistion themselves as hostess of the wedding and not as a guest.

Also the story being a short one has to be anylyzed line by line. If we are to believe this is not the weeding of Yeshua then what we find is that the name of the bride, the groom and even their parents are completely left out. This seems unusual considering the argument by most is that Yeshua, his mother and the disciples (and probably a few other friends of theirs) were "invited" to this wedding. It would appear that in order to simply be invited they'd have to be known by the bride, groom and/or family. I would think a brief mention of this family would have been mentioned...but that's just me I guess.


It seems there's a lot left out of the conversation in verses 4 and 5. Mary (his mother) tells him the wine is out and he tells her..why is that my concern. My time is not yet.

But then she says...whatever he tells you to do, you do it. It would appear she knew what her sons' role was in this wedding. I think she just merely wanted him to know the wine was out and the people were going to be upset at his wedding. I don't think she thought for a moment he was going to turn water into wine.

If verses 8, 9, and 10 are not in reference to Yeshua then the groom of the wedding took credit for providing the best tasting wine even though he didn't.

John 2:8-10

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]8 he said, "Dip some out and take it to the master of ceremonies." So they followed his instructions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]9 When the master of ceremonies tasted the water that was now wine, not knowing where it had come from (though, of course, the servants knew), he called the bridegroom over.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]10 "Usually a host serves the best wine first," he said. "Then, when everyone is full and doesn't care, he brings out the less expensive wines. But you have kept the best until now!"[/FONT]

It is certainly plausable to gather from this encounter that even though the MC "didn't know where the good wine came from" he thought he knew Who provided it so he called Yeshua over anyway, seeing as though he was the groom, to congradulate him on saving the best for last.

The MC along with the hostest (Mary), after checking and dealing with the guest believed all the wine was gone. When more wine was given to the MC he could have been thinking Yeshua was holding out...saving the best for last and called him over to praise him on it.

I think the man got marrie. What's wrong with a married Yeshua anyway??

Penguin, again I tell you: I couldn't do better. Someone here told me once that I was
master of imaginations and that I should publish a book of soap-opera. I think I have lost that place for you. Richer imagination than yours, none has. Congratulations! :clap

Ben: <*)))><

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Penguin, again I tell you: I couldn't do better. Someone here told me once that I was
master of imaginations and that I should publish a book of soap-opera. I think I have lost that place for you. Richer imagination than yours, none has. Congratulations! :clap

Ben: <*)))><

Teee....heeee.....


Here's the thing...in those brief lines there's nothing there, IMO, that says it WASN'T the wedding of Yeshua.

Were they "invited" as guest would be? I don't think so. The word used there is (Kaleo). It means to call or invite. Maybe the marriage was to be on a particular day and they (the wedding party, family and friends) were "summoned"..."requested" to be there. Maybe the marriage was arranged. Here's another interesting thing....The town of Cana could have been just a central meeting spot for both sides of the family. Kind of like marriages today. Not all of them happen in ones' home town.

The reason I say this is If you look at the map of Israel at the time you'll notice that Yeshua (Nasareth), Mary (Migdal, Taricheae) and Cana are not that far from each other. In fact they're clustered together in a tight little area. So for me it makes sense that even as vague as those few lines are they could have been in reference to the wedding of Yeshua of (Nasareth) and Mary of (Migdal). Look at E5 and F5 on the map and tell me what you think.


Map of Ancient Israel - Magdala

or this one here.

Bible Study - Cana

 

[Ben Masada]

Teee....heeee.....


Here's the thing...in those brief lines there's nothing there, IMO, that says it WASN'T the wedding of Yeshua.

Were they "invited" as guest would be? I don't think so. The word used there is (Kaleo). It means to call or invite. Maybe the marriage was to be on a particular day and they (the wedding party, family and friends) were "summoned"..."requested" to be there. Maybe the marriage was arranged. Here's another interesting thing....The town of Cana could have been just a central meeting spot for both sides of the family. Kind of like marriages today. Not all of them happen in ones' home town.

The reason I say this is If you look at the map of Israel at the time you'll notice that Yeshua (Nasareth), Mary (Migdal, Taricheae) and Cana are not that far from each other. In fact they're clustered together in a tight little area. So for me it makes sense that even as vague as those few lines are they could have been in reference to the wedding of Yeshua of (Nasareth) and Mary of (Migdal). Look at E5 and F5 on the map and tell me what you think.


Map of Ancient Israel - Magdala

or this one here.

Bible Study - Cana

Two interesting points this time, you bring to our attention: First is the fact that Jesus was invited in terms of being summoned or called.
Even today among Yemenite Jews, the bridegroom is settled somewhere even within the house, so that he be sommoned or called to assume
his role to take the bride. I married a Yemenite lady in Israel and I can assert to what I am saying. So, probably the friends of the bridegroom
ceremonially had to sommon or call him, and the translator interpreted as invited him.

The second point is regarding the place for the celebration. Cana was chosen although it was not the hometown of neither Jesus, which was
Nazareth nor of Mary Magdalene, which was Bethany. The same thing happens today, when usually a wedding Hall is chosen in a different city.
I was from Ramat Gan, my wife from Gedera and we got married in Rehovot. Isn't it interesting?

Ben: <*)))><

 

[IF_u_knew]

Ben, is this correct?

Jesus *had* to be married if he were a rabbi (a teacher of the Law) since the first Divine Command given was to be fruitful and multiply. If he were not married, then he could not be a rabbi (teacher of the Laws of God) since a teacher would have known this command and followed it himself. Yes? It kind of hit me when the proof was asked for a teacher having to be married. Thus, why, if Jesus was not married, he was not Jewish and certainly not a rabbi. I am asking here.. not declaring that I know; but it makes perfect sense to me, especially with how you would have arrived to your conclusion so adamantly. You pretty much have stated this, but it is hard for those of us on the other side of it to grasp direct declarations when we have been kept so long under the power of suggestions.

~ Katie

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ben, is this correct?

Jesus *had* to be married if he were a rabbi (a teacher of the Law) since the first Divine Command given was to be fruitful and multiply. If he were not married, then he could not be a rabbi (teacher of the Laws of God) since a teacher would have known this command and followed it himself. Yes? It kind of hit me when the proof was asked for a teacher having to be married. Thus, why, if Jesus was not married, he was not Jewish and certainly not a rabbi. I am asking here.. not declaring that I know; but it makes perfect sense to me, especially with how you would have arrived to your conclusion so adamantly. You pretty much have stated this, but it is hard for those of us on the other side of it to grasp direct declarations when we have been kept so long under the power of suggestions.

~ Katie

This is true..

We never really get who's wedding it was because the names of the Groom and Bride weren't mentioned. But as the MC addresses the Groom it appears the interaction is between him and Yeshua.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, is this correct?

Jesus *had* to be married if he were a rabbi (a teacher of the Law) since the first Divine Command given was to be fruitful and multiply. If he were not married, then he could not be a rabbi (teacher of the Laws of God) since a teacher would have known this command and followed it himself. Yes? It kind of hit me when the proof was asked for a teacher having to be married. Thus, why, if Jesus was not married, he was not Jewish and certainly not a rabbi. I am asking here.. not declaring that I know; but it makes perfect sense to me, especially with how you would have arrived to your conclusion so adamantly. You pretty much have stated this, but it is hard for those of us on the other side of it to grasp direct declarations when we have been kept so long under the power of suggestions.

~ Katie

Yes Katie, to be Jewish, he could be as a single man because he was born Jewish. But at age 30 as a single Jewish man, he would be constantly under the suspiction
of not being a normal man in a place where the ideal of every young man was to be married in his twenties. Even as a late Teenager, which was very common to happen.

Now, regarding being an ordained Rabbi or Teacher of the Law, the answer is definitely "NO". He could not be a single man. Even today the policy is the same. So much so in the First Century. Then, the commandment to get married is enforced upon the man, not the woman. Therefore, it was terribly embarrassing for a man to remain unmarried.

Christians have no idea about the damage they cause to Jesus in the eyes of many Agnostics as they expose Jesus at age 33 fulling around for almost 4 years with 12 guys, and calling one of them my beloved. They can't see that a married Jesus would gather much more credibility than a single one.

Ben: :yes:

 

[IF_u_knew]

Yes Katie, to be Jewish, he could be as a single man because he was born Jewish. But at age 30 as a single Jewish man, he would be constantly under the suspiction
of not being a normal man in a place where the ideal of every young man was to be married in his twenties. Even as a late Teenager, which was very common to happen.

Now, regarding being an ordained Rabbi or Teacher of the Law, the answer is definitely "NO". He could not be a single man. Even today the policy is the same. So much so in the First Century. Then, the commandment to get married is enforced upon the man, not the woman. Therefore, it was terribly embarrassing for a man to remain unmarried.

Christians have no idea about the damage they cause to Jesus in the eyes of many Agnostics as they expose Jesus at age 33 fulling around for almost 4 years with 12 guys, and calling one of them my beloved. They can't see that a married Jesus would gather much more credibility than a single one.

Ben: :yes:

The ironic thing is, many of them (Christians) do acknowledge their concept as being strange; they just fail to realize it because they are stuck under the 'see what you are told to see' method of teaching and not 'see what is actually there' method of teaching. I know that there are many who get that it is strange because it was and is joked about.. though discreetly and certainly never around non Christians (for there is an "image" to maintain). <----- and they acknowledge it.. they only lack understanding of it.

 

[Ben Masada]

The ironic thing is, many of them (Christians) do acknowledge their concept as being strange; they just fail to realize it because they are stuck under the 'see what you are told to see' method of teaching and not 'see what is actually there' method of teaching. I know that there are many who get that it is strange because it was and is joked about.. though discreetly and certainly never around non Christians (for there is an "image" to maintain). <----- and they acknowledge it.. they only lack understanding of it.

Absolutely! Katie. I do understand the irony. I have noticed indeed that many of them acknowledge the fact but somehow absent themselves from a reality that
they just can't avoid being pushed on them from outside themselves.

Ben:

 

[IF_u_knew]

I remember watching something while I was still in high school that made fun of many of the Christian concepts. I found myself, in spite of myself, laughing. It was just another opportunity given to make me consider and wonder about the teachings. But considering and wondering are highly discouraged, so I see your point about it being pushed on them from outside. What I find difficult to believe (though only from a personal perspective), is that it remains to be the fault of the outside influence once one reaches the age of reason. Again, personal view from personal experience. If something gives me cause to consider and wonder, there really is nothing to stop me from doing so.. and if I am told to not to think and rather to just accept, it is all the more reason for me to consider it and wonder about it.