Was Mary M. the Same as Mary B.?

[Ben Masada]

As to the Wedding in Cana, where you state that it is Jesus marriage, because of Jesus and his mother's involvement.

Now, this is just speculation, just like your claim, that the wedding could be one of Jesus' siblings' wedding, instead of his own. The bible do mention elsewhere that Jesus have brothers (who were named) and sisters (who were unnamed). However, the bride and groom was never named, so my claim is just as weak as yours, but my claim does and could explain why Mary mother of Jesus being concerned about the shortage of wine.

Do you think that Mary the mother of Jesus knew a little more about Judaism than you do? I am sure the answer is yes. Very good! When they were running out of wine, why didn't she go to complain to the Bridegroom instead of Jesus if this was not the one? I am sure Mary knew that the Bridegroom was the one responsible to supply the wine for the guests. I tell you that she did go directly to the Groom who was Jesus because she wanted to spare his son of the embarrassment of any criticism by the guests.

 

[sojourner]

Can you prove that Jesus was a Jew? Let me hear about your bogus wisdom.

Can you? You keep claiming that he was! Why call me on the carpet for saying the same thing you are?

 

[sojourner]

Do you think that Mary the mother of Jesus knew a little more about Judaism than you do? I am sure the answer is yes. Very good! When they were running out of wine, why didn't she go to complain to the Bridegroom instead of Jesus if this was not the one? I am sure Mary knew that the Bridegroom was the one responsible to supply the wine for the guests. I tell you that she did go directly to the Groom who was Jesus because she wanted to spare his son of the embarrassment of any criticism by the guests.

Speculation, at best, with nothing to back it up. Let's see some of that scholarship, Author!

 

[gnostic]

You can't accept my assertions as proof because you are coming from a different culture in the hope that you can dictate how Judaism is supposed to run. Reality is quite different.

True. I do belong to a different society and culture. I am certainly not Jewish.

However....

Do you think that Mary the mother of Jesus knew a little more about Judaism than you do? I am sure the answer is yes. Very good! When they were running out of wine, why didn't she go to complain to the Bridegroom instead of Jesus if this was not the one? I am sure Mary knew that the Bridegroom was the one responsible to supply the wine for the guests. I tell you that she did go directly to the Groom who was Jesus because she wanted to spare his son of the embarrassment of any criticism by the guests.

...let's say that there is a Jewish wedding today.

How much is the bride and bridegroom actually involved the running of the wedding reception?

Wouldn't the bridegroom stay with the bride, while the families of either parties take care of the little things, such as their enough seats, food and drink for the guests?

If one of Jesus' brothers were to marry, would it really be completely out of the question that Mary and Jesus take care of thing for his brother or her son, such as the wine in the wedding of Cana?

I think that would be quite natural to do so.

And the wedding episode never explicitly say that Jesus was a bridegroom, nor Mary B or M as being the bride. Actually the only Mary mentioned is Jesus' mother.

 

[Ben Masada]

Can you? You keep claiming that he was! Why call me on the carpet for saying the same thing you are?

If you succeed to prove to me that he was Jewish, I'll prove to you that he was married. Do you wanna try?

 

[Ben Masada]

Speculation, at best, with nothing to back it up. Let's see some of that scholarship, Author!

You are so ready to put down my speculations without considering that this is a sign that I can think. Did you know that usually fools don't speculate?

 

[Ben Masada]

True. I do belong to a different society and culture. I am certainly not Jewish.

Ben: Very good! Hold that thought and let a Jew tell you about being Jewish.

..let's say that there is a Jewish wedding today.

How much is the bride and bridegroom actually involved the running of the wedding reception?

Ben: Close to zero.

Wouldn't the bridegroom stay with the bride, while the families of either parties take care of the little things, such as their enough seats, food and drink for the guests?

Ben: No, they would not.

If one of Jesus' brothers were to marry, would it really be completely out of the question that Mary and Jesus take care of thing for his brother or her son, such as the wine in the wedding of Cana?

Ben: To take care of arrangement of things yes, but the Bridegroom had to provide for the wine. That was tradition. I married into a very traditional Yemenite family and I was reminded of that tradition, which I happily complied. Today, in modern weddings, Jews no longer care for this kind of traditions. In Cana, Jesus was the one who provided the wine for the guests.

And the wedding episode never explicitly say that Jesus was a bridegroom, nor Mary B or M as being the bride. Actually the only Mary mentioned is Jesus' mother.

Ben: The Bible was written by men. It was only natural that the Bride would not be mentioned, in my opinion, especially Mary Magdalene, who had had a questionable past.

 

[sojourner]

If you succeed to prove to me that he was Jewish, I'll prove to you that he was married. Do you wanna try?

You claim that he was Jewish. Then you claim that he was not. Could you make up your mind?:sleep:

 

[sojourner]

You are so ready to put down my speculations without considering that this is a sign that I can think. Did you know that usually fools don't speculate?

Once again, let's see some of that scholarship, author!

 

[logician]

The idea that any Jew would claim he was a god is a strict heresy, just a thought.

 

[sojourner]

The idea that any Jew would claim he was a god is a strict heresy, just a thought.

Actually, it's not heresy. It's blasphemy.
Why do you think Jesus was killed? Just a thought.

 

[Ben Masada]

You claim that he was Jewish. Then you claim that he was not. Could you make up your mind?:sleep:

Don't worry about my mind! I have made it up about Jesus since a long time ago. I am 101 percent sure that the Jesus I am talking about was Jewish. I want to hear what proofs you have to claim that the Jesus you are talking about was Jewish.

 

[Ben Masada]

The idea that any Jew would claim he was a god is a strict heresy, just a thought.

I agree with you, but coming from you, it's odd.

 

[sojourner]

Don't worry about my mind! I have made it up about Jesus since a long time ago. I am 101 percent sure that the Jesus I am talking about was Jewish. I want to hear what proofs you have to claim that the Jesus you are talking about was Jewish.

Yeah! And then, in another thread, you berate Jesus for a social interchange that would have been quite normal for a Rabbi during that time.
Wazzup with that?!

 

[Ben Masada]

Yeah! And then, in another thread, you berate Jesus for a social interchange that would have been quite normal for a Rabbi during that time.
Wazzup with that?!

Which Jesus did I berate? It couldn't be the one I believe was Jewish. It must have be the Hellenistic one you guys worship as a god.

 

[sojourner]

Which Jesus did I berate? It couldn't be the one I believe was Jewish. It must have be the Hellenistic one you guys worship as a god.

Must be nice to be able to commandeer someone's scripture and tear it apart for your own purposes. Then claim that much of it is crap, while touting the stuff you happen to agree with as "true."
In case you didn't notice, there is only one Jesus. The one presented in the gospels. That's the Jesus we're dealing with -- and we have to deal with him as a whole. to treat him in any other way is irresponsible. Either you believe the stories or you don't. But you don't get to claim imminent domain "because I'm a Jew" and then proceed to apply the worst exegesis I've ever seen, outside s word, squeezing out the most preposterous interpretations I've seen yet from someone who claims to be a scholar and an "author."

 

[Ben Masada]

Must be nice to be able to commandeer someone's scripture and tear it apart for your own purposes. Then claim that much of it is crap, while touting the stuff you happen to agree with as "true."
In case you didn't notice, there is only one Jesus. The one presented in the gospels. That's the Jesus we're dealing with -- and we have to deal with him as a whole. to treat him in any other way is irresponsible. Either you believe the stories or you don't. But you don't get to claim imminent domain "because I'm a Jew" and then proceed to apply the worst exegesis I've ever seen, outside s word, squeezing out the most preposterous interpretations I've seen yet from someone who claims to be a scholar and an "author."

There is nothing you can do to put together the Christ of Paul, which was born 30 years after the Jesus of Nazareth was gone and this Jesus who was the real one. That's the only way to prevent contradictions from proliferating in the NT. I mean, before those who have a mind of their own.

 

[sojourner]

There is nothing you can do to put together the Christ of Paul, which was born 30 years after the Jesus of Nazareth was gone and this Jesus who was the real one. That's the only way to prevent contradictions from proliferating in the NT. I mean, before those who have a mind of their own.

The Christ of Paul was written about beginning only 20 years after the crucifixion.

Which "this Jesus" are you referring to? The one that was "created by 'hellenist' writers" 40 years after the fact, or the one that was portrayed by Jewish Q ten years after the fact, and embraced by both Matthew and Luke? Seems like the only contradictions here are ones fabricated by you.

 

[Ben Masada]

The Christ of Paul was written about beginning only 20 years after the crucifixion.

Which "this Jesus" are you referring to? The one that was "created by 'hellenist' writers" 40 years after the fact, or the one that was portrayed by Jewish Q ten years after the fact, and embraced by both Matthew and Luke? Seems like the only contradictions here are ones fabricated by you.

By "this Jesus," I mean the Jesus of Nazareth.
I stick to 30, but it doesn't matter much. Let's consider your 20 years after the crucifixion. For 20 years, Jesus' Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem, promoting the Cause of Jesus, which was the Sect of the Nazarenes, and no one knew that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Paul comes to Jerusalem, causes a havoc, preaching exactly those things about Jesus, gets the local Jews on an uproar to kill him, and because he was an old friend of Banabas, a VIP among the Nazarenes, these save him by taking him down to Caesarea and shipping him back to Tarsus where he belonged. Kind of odd, don't you think so?(Acts 9:27-31)

 

[sojourner]

By "this Jesus," I mean the Jesus of Nazareth.
I stick to 30, but it doesn't matter much. Let's consider your 20 years after the crucifixion. For 20 years, Jesus' Apostles were headquartered in Jerusalem, promoting the Cause of Jesus, which was the Sect of the Nazarenes, and no one knew that Jesus was the Messiah, son of God, and that he had resurrected. Paul comes to Jerusalem, causes a havoc, preaching exactly those things about Jesus, gets the local Jews on an uproar to kill him, and because he was an old friend of Banabas, a VIP among the Nazarenes, these save him by taking him down to Caesarea and shipping him back to Tarsus where he belonged. Kind of odd, don't you think so?(Acts 9:27-31)

A nice fantasy, but that's not how it happened. We can show that through literary evidence. For 20 years, communities were established outside of Jerusalem. Mark reads far less urban than either Matthew or Luke. Q actually reads very, very rural. Since we posit that Q was probably produced around 40, the community that produced it must have been established earlier than that -- less than 7 years after the crucifixion.