plaetton:

I know the whole plot revolved around the the bloodline of jesus, but I cannot remember any specific mention of mary magdalene.

whats the da vinci code?supposedly,davinci's potrayal of the last supper had mary magdalene at his right side.the pope didnt approve of it,hence he removed her from the painting but left the space blank so it was evident there was someone leaning on jesus in the painting.supposedly,jesus had children with mary magdalene,and the bloodline supposedly exists till date and it was the duty of the priory of sion to protect that line.

however,its all fiction

plaetton: ^^^
You have been very objective and I appreciate.
There are many more books that are not part of the christian cannons.

The Torah existed long before the advent of Jesus so I think I can safely infer Jewish custom from it without fear of mixing it with Christian tradition. That said, Josephus' writings of the era collaborate the national and religious structure of the time as narrated in the Gospels. Now what materials are you taking source from?

Are you assuming that all aspects of ancient jewish life and traditions must be in the old testament? Just ask a jew.

Yes let us ask a Jew if the Torah is the source of their traditions or not.

Rabbi doesn't just mean teacher. A rabbi is an ordained and dedicated priest. a spiritual guide. A rabbi is also a custodian and in most times,an interpreter of jewish law and tradition.
It is not a name you just tag onto someone.

Jesus was not officially a rabbi. For Him to have been a rabbi He would have had to be either a Pharisee or a Sadducee, He was neither as you well know. Also, He would have had to have been affiliated to a synagogue which He couldn't have been with the way He moved around a lot. He was called Rabbi by His followers because He expounded the scripture (the Torah) in other words He taught them. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Rabbi:

In Judaism, a rabbi ( /ˈræbaɪ/) is a teacher of Torah. This title derives from the Hebrew word רי rabi [ˈʁäbi], meaning "My Master" which is the way a student would address a master of Torah. The word "master" רב rav [ˈʁäv] literally means
"great one". The basic form of the rabbi developed in the Pharisaic and Talmudic era, when learned teachers assembled to codify Judaism's written and oral laws.

If jesus was called a rabbi, then he was most certainly all of the above.

How come you can say with certainty? What again I ask is your source?

As per pre-marital pregnancy, pls understand that what i said was the bride in a dynastic marriage, not all brides, had to be pregnant after commencement of the initial marriage rites , but before, the final rites of marriage.

What again is your source?

plaetton: I have no idea of what you are talking about. Further clarification of what?

plaetton: As for the above passage in red. Where does it say that the woman in question was mary Magdalene?

I meant further clarification of the above quote.

plaetton: The gospels did not say that jesus mas married, neither did they say that he was not. what we are left with are anectodal evidence that point to the fact it would have been impossible for him not to have been married.

Look at the bolded and you'll agree with me that you've answered your own initial question.

plaetton: Looking at it from a non scriptural vantage point, that is clearly what I see.Given the history of selection,revisions,editing and redacting that has characterized the bible over the two millenia, I am inclined to suspect that many parts of jesus life, especially his family life, have been deliberately taken out of the scriptures , first, in order validate or not to diminish the divinity of Jesus, and second, in order to accept the church of rome as the sole heir of the apostolic authority of jesus.

This is a very bold claim...do you have any evidence to back up your claim or is this just an assumption?

Lord_Reed:

The Torah existed long before the advent of Jesus so I think I can safely infer Jewish custom from it without fear of mixing it with Christian tradition. That said, Josephus' writings of the era collaborate the national and religious structure of the time as narrated in the Gospels. Now what materials are you taking source from?



Yes let us ask a Jew if the Torah is the source of their traditions or not.



Jesus was not officially a rabbi. For Him to have been a rabbi He would have had to be either a Pharisee or a Sadducee, He was neither as you well know. Also, He would have had to have been affiliated to a synagogue which He couldn't have been with the way He moved around a lot. He was called Rabbi by His followers because He expounded the scripture (the Torah) in other words He taught them. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Rabbi:

In Judaism, a rabbi ( /ˈræbaɪ/) is a teacher of Torah. This title derives from the Hebrew word רי rabi [ˈʁäbi], meaning "My Master" which is the way a student would address a master of Torah. The word "master" רב rav [ˈʁäv] literally means
"great one". The basic form of the rabbi developed in the Pharisaic and Talmudic era, when learned teachers assembled to codify Judaism's written and oral laws.




How come you can say with certainty? What again I ask is your source?



What again is your source?

You have made mention of Josephus, but I wonder if you have read his works.
The source for all of the above regarding jewish traditions is non other than Josephus.
His works are voluminous, but if you can, take your time to read them.

plaetton:

You have made mention of Josephus, but I wonder if you have read his works.
The source for all of the above regarding jewish traditions is non other than Josephus.
His works are voluminous, but if you can, take your time to read them.

Really? Josephus explicitly states that the Davidic royal house required premarital pregnancy? I would like to see an excerpt of that if you would be so kind.

cyrexx: Some people are pointing to Mary Magdalene as being more than just an apostle. Probably his wife. Nobody knows for sure anymore since all other gospels that contradicts the canon were destroyed as only four are endorsed by the Nicene council.
As s side note, im curious about the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene) and i will love to read it if i have the chance.8-)

The gospel of mary and philip are insightful and are freely available online..

Lord_Reed:

Really? Josephus explicitly states that the Davidic royal house required premarital pregnancy? I would like to see an excerpt of that if you would be so kind.

Is that the way you want to put it?

Dynastic marriages required probational periods to insure that an offspring can be produced. Thats the way I prefer to put it.

Pls read up on it.

k2039:
Show me one that claimed to

They are people of the Merovingian dynasty..they claim the jesus blood and they are protected by the Priory of Sion

mkmyers45: The gospel of mary and philip are insightful and are freely available online..

Thank you

plaetton:

Is that the way you want to put it?

Dynastic marriages required probational periods to insure that an offspring can be produced. Thats the way I prefer to put it.

Pls read up on it.

I ask for an excerpt because I don't have the text. I have done a search online for "premarital pregnancy in the Davidic royal house" and came up with zilch so do me a favour and quote an excerpt.

Lord_Reed:

I ask for an excerpt because I don't have the text. I have done a search online for "premarital pregnancy in the Davidic royal house" and came up with zilch so do me a favour and quote an excerpt.

O'cmon. Google is not a substitute for thorough research.
What happened to the good old days of reading books? lol

First get the words" premarital pregnancy " off your head and replace it with "dynastic marriages in ancient jewish culture."
That might improve your luck.
Good luck.

Lord_Reed:

I ask for an excerpt because I don't have the text. I have done a search online for "premarital pregnancy in the Davidic royal house" and came up with zilch so do me a favour and quote an excerpt.

Hey, Like the good friend That I am , I have found something for you to examine.

You can thank me later.

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/maschiach/joseph.shtml

Here is an excerpt:

Mary and Joseph as we shall soon see were both descendants of the House of David. This was a dynasty that all Israel was looking for: to produce an heir that would assume the throne of David and throw off the hated yoke of the Edomites or the Romans. Any heir of the House of David was carefully guarded and protected in this era, for they were hunted as potential aspirants for the throne of David. In the secular history of the Jews, King Herod sought to kill any potential aspirant to the throne of Judea. In the latter years as he was becoming more paranoid, this evil and vicious monarch had many enemies and as such his throne was vulnerable.

These descendants of the House of David were also guarded carefully and matched together in the hopes of producing that long awaited messiah. The Essenes, it is believed, were the guardians of the dynasty of David and carefully watched and protected every potential heir to the throne of David.

If the marriage of Mary and Joseph was not the modern romantic ‘love made in heaven’ marriage but rather a ‘dynastic espousal’ in which Joseph already accepted Mary as his wife, this wedding would have been governed by strict rules and regulations. Dynastic marriages and the rules that governed them were quite unlike the norms for Jewish marriages. They were to live a celibate life except in specific and defined intervals in which the date for the procreation of a child was most desired. During these times of celibacy they were recognized as ‘virgins’.

It has been suggested that dynastic espousals in Judea sought to give birth to an heir to the House of David during the time of one of the high festivals of the Lord. This birth date could either be at the festivals of Passover or Pesach in the spring or during the fall festival month of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement and Succot in the months of September or October. As such, proper timing was essential.

After the contracts were sealed at the betrothal/espousal, they were await until the appropriate month to try to conceive. If they did try to conceive in September for a Pesach birth and were successful, a formalized espousal ceremony called the ‘First Marriage’ was conducted. At this time they were anointed and the legalization of the marriage was assured. With the assumption that the bride had not conceived, no sexual relations were allowed for another three months. During the first half of December, the couple could again try to conceive for a Yom Kippur or Sukkot birth or again in the first half of June for a Passover birth.

The young maiden was recognized as a probationary wife and when she was proven to have conceived, they were again anointed in a second ceremony called the ‘Second Marriage’, in the month of March or September, and the wedlock was pronounced legal. This ceremony was not celebrated until she was three months pregnant, allowing time that in the event of a miscarriage, the husband and heir of the House of David, could legally take a new wife for espousal in the event that the first espoused bride was proven to be barren.

For some this interpretation of the dynastic espousal/betrothal of Jesus and Mary appears to be a manipulation of the story of the birth of Jesus. It still has to be recognized that there truly existed documented accounts of formal dynastic marriages in Judaic culture. Whether Christians want to recognize this fact in an era of casual and self gratification of sex where the issues of procreation are secondary to one’s educational goals and professional achievements, the historical records testifies that in the Hebrew culture, the command of the Lord to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ was the driving force for them to procreate.

The Biblical testimony is replete with stories of parents were blessed of the Lord if they had children and cursed of the Lord if they did not. To tamper with the wrath of God and use contraception outside of controlled abstinence or periods of celibacy was not conceivable in orthodox Jewish life. The fact of dynastic marriages, whether approved or disapproved are not addressed by Torah laws, but evidence does show that they did occur in a Torah observant culture.

^^^^
The website was not my source. I just discovered it while trying to help you with your search.
I cannot vouch for it, but it very well echoes most of the points I have been making regarding dynastic marriages, temple virgins and those who bore the title of Mary.

It also makes the distinction between espousal and bethrotal.

It points to the fact that Jesus, like his fathe Joseph could only have follwed the same path in terms of dynastic marriage.
The annointing by speicial oil by mary magdalene would have been one stage of the marriage rites between them.

My point is that if Jesus was from the royal house of David, there would be noooooooooo way in the world tha he would not have been married with children at the age of 33. simple.

Remove your religious veil, read the bible as you would read shakespear, and you would see hints and clues that jesus was indeed married, and also that this fact was deliberately obfuscated by the later editors of the gospels who did not want to share the apostolic inheritance with the descendants of that marriage.

No surprise that they hated Mary Magdalene so much so that they called her a LovePeddler for trying seduce Christ.
Give a dog a bad name and then hang it.huh?

plaetton:

Hey, Like the good friend That I am , I have found something for you to examine.

You can thank me later.

http://www.biblesearchers.com/yahshua/maschiach/joseph.shtml

I was already looking at this page when your post came in.

That marriage (and it was legal) practice was only among the Essenes, a small fringe group of Jews. Also note that the writer states this at the begin of the paragraph describing the practice:

"It has been suggested that dynastic espousals in Judea..."

Not a very widely known historic fact.

Joseph and Mary being members of such a group is quite doubtful unless we want to conjecture that it was not recorded elsewhere and that the Pharisees and Sadducees did not use it as a point against Jesus.

Lord_Reed:

I was already looking at this page when your post came in.

That marriage (and it was legal) practice was only among the Essenes, a small fringe group of Jews. Also note that the writer states this at the begin of the paragraph describing the practice:

"It has been suggested that dynastic espousals in Judea..."

Not a very widely known historic fact.

Joseph and Mary being members of such a group is quite doubtful unless we want to conjecture that it was not recorded elsewhere and that the Pharisees and Sadducees did not use it as a point against Jesus.

Josephus points out that there were 3 distinct jewish sects at the time, the parisees, the saducees, and the essense.
We know that jesus denounced the pharisees and the saducees, but was silent on the essense, as would be expected from one deouncing his rivals.
Also,John the baptist, his cousin and fellow heir to the same throne,who also baptised him, was, without doubt, an essene.
baptism in water was an essene practice.

Most of his disciples were essense. The zeelots were a radical offshoots of the essenses.
If you read Josephus, you would have no doubts thaty Jesus was an essene.
everything about him points tot that fact.
His ascetic life, his preaching,his healing practice, all were essentially essene.

plaetton:

Josephus points out that there were 3 distinct jewish sects at the time, the parisees, the saducees, and the essense.
We know that jesus denounced the pharisees and the saducees, but was silent on the essense, as would be expected from one deouncing his rivals.
Also,John the baptist, his cousin and fellow heir to the same throne,who also baptised him, was, without doubt, an essene.
baptism in water was an essene practice.

Most of his disciples were essense. The zeelots were a radical offshoots of the essenses.
If you read Josephus, you would have no doubts thaty Jesus was an essene.
everything about him points tot that fact.
His ascetic life, his preaching,his healing practice, all were essentially essene.

Conjecture. Some of Jesus' traits were quite the opposite of the Essene way. Number one was a strict adherence to Sabbath which Jesus did not conform too. Secondly the Essenes where highly ascetic Jesus wasn't. Essenes held on to strict ritual purity Jesus didn't. There are other critical differences. Jesus may not have condemn them because they did not feature prominently in daily jewish life of that time being somewhat ascetics in contrast to the Pharisees and Sadducees who occupied the high offices of the jewish strata of those days and thus prone to corruption.

In supporting the imagination that Jesus may have married in the Essene fashion you should also note that not all Essenes had that practice.

UPDATE: Josephus does not explicitly state that those marriage practices were because of the Davidic dynasty.

Lord_Reed:

Conjecture. Some of Jesus' traits were quite the opposite of the Essene way. Number one was a strict adherence to Sabbath which Jesus did not conform too. Secondly the Essenes where highly ascetic Jesus wasn't. Essenes held on to strict ritual purity Jesus didn't. There are other critical differences. Jesus may not have condemn them because they did not feature prominently in daily jewish life of that time being somewhat ascetics in contrast to the Pharisees and Sadducees who occupied the high offices of the jewish strata of those days and thus prone to corruption.

In supporting the imagination that Jesus may have married in the Essene fashion you should also note that not all Essenes had that practice.

Ha aha. strict adherence to sabbat was a general jewish thing , not just essene.
In what way was jesus not highly ascetic? pls explain that.
what do you mean by strict ritual purity and what makes you say that Jesus did not?
What are these critical differences?
The pharisees, the saducees and the essense were in competition for the soul of the jews regarding which sect espoused the true religion and traditions of jews. It is very similar to what we have today in different dominations of christianity claiming the purity and superiority of its own doctrines.

As per your last point, jesus would not have been an ordinary essene, he was heir to a dynasty, a dynasty which the jews, not just the essenes, had been looking upon to liberate them from centuries of oppression from the romans.

It has been suggested that the reason that the Senhadrin, the jewish council, had doubts and evenetually rejected the messianic mission of jesus was simply because he was born on the wrong month, which was against the strict established rules of dynastic procreation.

That would have been why Joseph felt confused when he realized that mary was pregnant.

Pls take time to read the wedding at Cana, where jesus supposedly turned water into wine. Read it with as much open mind as possible and be honest with yourself about the puzzles and questions that come to your mind as you read it.

plaetton:

Ha aha. strict adherence to sabbat was a general jewish thing , not just essene.
In what way was jesus not highly ascetic? pls explain that.
what do you mean by strict ritual purity and what makes you say that Jesus did not?
What are these critical differences?
The pharisees, the saducees and the essense were in competition for the soul of the jews regarding which sect espoused the true religion and traditions of jews. It is very similar to what we have today in different dominations of christianity claiming the purity and superiority of its own doctrines.

As per your last point, jesus would not have been an ordinary essene, he was heir to a dynasty, a dynasty which the jews, not just the essenes, had been looking upon to liberate them from centuries of oppression from the romans.

It has been suggested that the reason that the Senhadrin, the jewish council, had doubts and evenetually rejected the messianic mission of jesus was simply because he was born on the wrong month, which was against the strict established rules of dynastic procreation.

That would have been why Joseph felt confused when he realized that mary was pregnant.

Pls take time to read the wedding at Cana, where jesus supposedly turned water into wine. Read it with as much open mind as possible and be honest with yourself about the puzzles and questions that come to your mind as you read it.

Jesus wasn't ascetic as the Essenes were. Josephus tells us that they were comparable to monks and so live communal lifestyles that didn't allow for much interaction with the wider jewish community. Jesus was not so, critically an ascetic would not be found at a feast given by a publican.

Yes sabbath adherance was a general Jewish thing but can you really suggest that an Essene will go against this and remain in their communal place without some fracas with the others?

Jesus repeated told the jews that concept of ritual cleansing was a man made tradition. Do you suppose He could do this and the other Essenes would not denounce Him?

Jesus never recorded as mentioning the Essenoi, not even once. How do you call attention to your sect without once even mentioning their name in discourse?

You keep mentioning this dynastic procreation of a thing and I keep saying it was not a widely held notion if it ever existed. Certainly the Pharisees did not acknowledge it in all their recorded disputing with Him. Also such a practice does not exist today despite the fact that the jews still are expecting a messiah from the house of David.

You may conjecture that Joseph's confusion was as a result of the rejection but it can be simply explained by the fact that he was supposed to be marrying a virgin as was jewish custom.

One other point is that Essenes eschewed animal sacrifice yet it is recorded that Joseph and Mary went to the temple in Jerusalem to make sacrifice.

The marriage feast at Cana further proves that Jesus was not an ascetic. An ascetic drinking wine? Or even making wine?

I have no idea what you mean by ritual purity, and now you say ritual cleansing. No idea ta all.
C'mon. Do jews have dynastic line today?

Listen friend, I think I have gone far enough to show that jesus would have been married. That is all I was trying to do.
There is nothing I can say or prove right now that make a difference to you. Even if I pull out his marriage certificate now,lol, am sure you would find fault in the fine print.

As per the wedding at cana, you missed the idea because you were reading from a religious point of view.

Here are some of the questions that come to my mind when I read it.

1. Why would a lowly wife and son of a carpenter(who happens to be an ascetic teacher rabbi) be invited to what seemed like a society wedding?
2. Why would the gospels, notorious for details about names and places, this time seem to be LOUDLY silent [/b]on the identities of the hosts or groom and bride of the wedding?
Ding dong! alarm bells!
Where they his relatives, his disciples or what?
3. Most importantly, why would mary, mother of jesus,hitherto very silent and ignored throughout most of the gospels, now suddenly become active in a wedding where she is only a guest?
4. what is her business if the wine is finished? so what? was it her duty to provide wine for the unnamed bride and groom?

5. Why was she pestering jesus to do something? What exactly was she asking jesus to do about the finished wine? Did he owe anyone an obligation to do any thing?

6. Most importantly, given that this was the first recorded miracle of jesus, how did mary have prior knowledge that jesus was capable of performing such a feat?

7. Did you notice that mc or equivalent thanked [b]the host , again unnamed,for the excellent wine?.

These are things to ponder.

plaetton: I have no idea what you mean by ritual purity, and now you say ritual cleansing. No idea ta all.
C'mon. Do jews have dynastic line today?

I guess you are not as familiar with jewish tradition as it would seem.

Listen friend, I think I have gone far enough to show that jesus would have been married. That is all I was trying to do.
There is nothing I can say or prove right now that make a difference to you. Even if I pull out his marriage certificate now,lol, am sure you would find fault in the fine print.

And I tried to provide a counter point to it if you feel it is find fault with fine print oh well.

As per the wedding at cana, you missed the idea because you were reading from a religious point of view.

Why must you assume this?

Here are some of the questions that come to my mind when I read it.

1. Why would a lowly wife and son of a carpenter(who happens to be an ascetic teacher rabbi) be invited to what seemed like a society wedding?

Who said it such people do not get invited elaborate weddings?

2. Why would the gospels, notorious for details about names and places, this time seem to be [b]LOUDLY silent [/b]on the identities of the hosts or groom and bride of the wedding?
Ding dong! alarm bells!
Where they his relatives, his disciples or what?
[/quotes]

Why couldn't they have been relatives or even family friends.

[quote]
3. Most importantly, why would mary, mother of jesus,hitherto very silent and ignored throughout most of the gospels, now suddenly become active in a wedding where she is only a guest?

What kind of speculation is this? Must every single thing have a double meaning? Can't it merely be a recorded event and nothing more?

4. what is her business if the wine is finished? so what? was it her duty to provide wine for the unnamed bride and groom?

And if she was familiar with them or maybe even part of the organisers of the wedding?

5. Why was she pestering jesus to do something? What exactly was she asking jesus to do about the finished wine? Did he owe anyone an obligation to do any thing?

Why are normal family relationships taking on a sinister dimension? Do mothers not ask favours of their children? Or are we to imagine that because it is Jesus He did not have a cordial or loving relationship with His family?

6. Most importantly, given that this was the first recorded miracle of jesus, how did mary have prior knowledge that jesus was capable of performing such a feat?

She lived with Him for years are you saying it is strange for her to know the sort of person He was?

7. Did you notice that mc or equivalent thanked the host , again unnamed,for the excellent wine?.

These are things to ponder.

So what? The MC did not know where the wine came from so who would he have thanked instead?

Your questions seem to want us to read hidden meanings into this event. Well not a bad intellectual exercise but of doubtful practical value without new information.

Lord_Reed:

I guess you are not as familiar with jewish tradition as it would seem.



And I tried to provide a counter point to it if you feel it is find fault with fine print oh well.



Why must you assume this?



Who said it such people do not get invited elaborate weddings?

like I said, they are just points to ponder.
Since I am already biased, I am inclined to conjecture that perhaps, that mary was only playing her role as the mother of the groom, and that Jesus was most probably the groom in question.

The idea that mary knew in advance that jesus was capable of turning water into wine, and had pressured him to so at a wedding where they were guests, is just way toooo absurd to even consider.

The replacing of water with wine by the groom as a refreshment may have been just one of the customs during the ceremony.
That might explain why Mary was nervous, anxious ,and was hurrying Jesus to do so, and why jesus scolded her that "the time has not come" to replace the water with wine.

After much pestering by his mother(we all know how annoying that can be), Jesus finally acquiesced and went ahead to replace the water with wine, much sooner than the guests had expected.
This would have, no doubts,surpised the guests who might have joked that the groom, jesus, had TURNED THE WATER INTO WINE.

That is what makes sense to me.

Cheers.

plaetton:

like I said, they are just points to ponder.
Since I am already biased, I am inclined to conjecture that perhaps, that mary was only playing her role as the mother of the groom, and that Jesus was most probably the groom in question.

The idea that mary knew in advance that jesus was capable of turning water into wine, and had pressured him to so at a wedding where they were guests, is just way toooo absurd to even consider.

The replacing of water with wine by the groom as a refreshment may have been just one of the customs during the ceremony.
That might explain why Mary was nervous, anxious ,and was hurrying Jesus to do so, and why jesus scolded her that "the time has not come" to replace the water with wine.

After much pestering by his mother(we all know how annoying that can be), Jesus finally acquiesced and went ahead to replace the water with wine, much sooner than the guests had expected.
This would have, no doubts,surpised the guests who might have joked that the groom, jesus, had TURNED THE WATER INTO WINE.

That is what makes sense to me.

Cheers.

Don't take this the wrong way but really your conjecture is turning toward the comedic. Jesus is invited to His own wedding? Sounds like a home movie or a romantic comedy.

Anyway until we have new information our imagination is free to roam.

Lord_Reed:

Don't take this the wrong way but really your conjecture is turning toward the comedic. Jesus is invited to His own wedding? Sounds like a home movie or a romantic comedy.

Anyway until we have new information our imagination is free to roam.

The scriptures say that he was invited.
Since the authors and editors of the scriptures decided to hide the Identity of the birde and groom, did you honestly expect them to tell you that jesus was invited to his own wedding?

C'mon man.

If this story was from a spy novel or detective thriller, you would have reached the same conclusions even before the end of the story.
The problem is that what is presented in the bible cannot be altered or questioned by hte faithful.
I understand that and I dont hold that against you.

You have showed a greater open mind and intellectual vigor than most nairaland religious faithfuls.

plaetton:

The scriptures say that he was invited.
Since the authors and editors of the scriptures decided to hide the Identity of the birde and groom, did you honestly expect them to tell you that jesus was invited to his own wedding?

C'mon man.

If this story was from a spy novel or detective thriller, you would have reached the same conclusions even before the end of the story.
The problem is that what is presented in the bible cannot be altered or questioned by hte faithful.
I understand that and I dont hold that against you.

You have showed a greater open mind and intellectual vigor than most nairaland religious faithfuls.

Where else did you get this marriage at Cana recorded in a different form to compare?

Lord_Reed:

Where else did you get this marriage at Cana recorded in a different form to compare?

Just from reading the story as it was presented in the bible.
I am not claiming this as absolute fact,no, I am reaching a conclusion based on the several clues available.

As a non-religious person,I am at liberty to question gospel stories that do not add up, especially where the gospel maintains a VERY LOUD silence on something important, such as the identities of the bride and groom in a ceremony where jesus supposedly performed his first miracle after much pestering to do so by his now domineering(?) mama.

plaetton:

Just from reading the story as it was presented in the bible.
I am not claiming this as absolute fact,no, I am reaching a conclusion based on the several clues available.

As a non-religious person,I am at liberty to question gospel stories that do not add up, especially where the gospel maintains a VERY LOUD silence on something important, such as the identities of the bride and groom in a ceremony where jesus supposedly performed his first miracle after much pestering to do so by his now domineering(?) mama.

I am also curious as to the identities of lots of folk mentioned in the scriptures who though feature in quite interesting events are not named. Are you suggesting that all those also are also questionable circumstances that why their names are not mentioned? Why is this marriage ceremony (and by extension the bride and groom) more important than the Samaritan woman Jesus had a conversation with? Or the widow whose son He brought back to life? Or the old woman healed of a bent back? Are those events not notable enough?

Maybe you have provided the answer ie you suspect everything written in the scriptures. If that is the case why bother?

Lord_Reed:

I am also curious as to the identities of lots of folk mentioned in the scriptures who though feature in quite interesting events are not named. Are you suggesting that all those also are also questionable circumstances that why their names are not mentioned? Why is this marriage ceremony (and by extension the bride and groom) more important than the Samaritan woman Jesus had a conversation with? Or the widow whose son He brought back to life? Or the old woman healed of a bent back? Are those events not notable enough?

Maybe you have provided the answer ie you suspect everything written in the scriptures. If that is the case why bother?

Good point.
But I dont think jesus was taking names and addresses of people he healed or came came into contact with.
Ids are were not required for healing.

A wedding is different. jesus was there, his mother and his dicsiples were there.
He and his mother played prominent, nay, miraclulous roles.
It is just grossly inconsitent for the gospel to omitt the names of the celebrants.

C'mon man, if you read the bible very well, you would agree that the bible does not make such ommisions, unless it , or the writers or editors wanted to do so.
if this was a Nollywood movie, you, as well the people you are watching the film with, would have been trying to outguess each other as to who the bride and groom might have been. Would you not?
If not, it just means that you are not as curious as I am.

It simply cannot be a mere coincidence, laziness or negligence on the part of the gospel writer that the hosts of a society wedding, where the messiah and son of god attended with his mother and entourage, are ommitted in the story.

In solving any mystery, the first thing you do is to check for what is missing or what is being concealed. When you know for sure that something is concealed,that is usually your first and most important lead for you investigation.

By first finding out what is missing, you then can proceed to investigate who and why.

plaetton:

Good point.
But I dont think jesus was taking names and addresses of people he healed or came came into contact with.
Ids are were not required for healing.

A wedding is different. jesus was there, his mother and his dicsiples were there.
He and his mother played prominent, nay, miraclulous roles.
It is just grossly inconsitent for the gospel to omitt the names of the celebrants.

C'mon man, if you read the bible very well, you would agree that the bible does not make such ommisions, unless it , or the writers or editors wanted to do so.
if this was a Nollywood movie, you, as well the people you are watching the film with, would have been trying to outguess each other as to who the bride and groom might have been. Would you not?
If not, it just means that you are not as curious as I am.

It simply cannot be a mere coincidence, laziness or negligence on the part of the gospel writer that the hosts of a society wedding, where the messiah and son of god attended with his mother and entourage, are ommitted in the story.

In solving any mystery, the first thing you do is to check for what is missing or what is being concealed. When you know for sure that something is concealed,that is usually your first and most important lead for you investigation.

By first finding out what is missing, you then can proceed to investigate who and why.

What about the thieves hung with Jesus especially the one who talks to Him? Mary was there so where some of His disciples. Does this event not qualify for special investigation?

Lord_Reed:

What about the thieves hung with Jesus especially the one who talks to Him? Mary was there so where some of His disciples. Does this event not qualify for special investigation?

Ha ha ha.
The so-called thieves are not related to the question of whether jesus was married or not.
In pondering whether Jesus was married or not, the wedding at Cana offers tantalizing pieces of information that Can be stitched together to form a theory, a compelling one, but only a theory.

You dont have to agree with me.
Infact,I would be shocked if you did .
I just want you to understand where I am coming from.

k2039: This is just common sense.
During the space of his 3 years of ministry,if He had a wife,she would have been recorded in the scriptures.
Think about it,He is always with his disciples(there was refernce to everybody,his mother,father,brothers,so if their was a wife there wouldnt have been any exception)
If He had a wife,he probably would have had a kid,and definitely their would have been a set of people claiming to be directly God as a result of the offspring(He would have had a lineage,Jesus' lineage in Isreal

If He had a direct lineage from Him,then [size=13pt] the Pope will definitely be from that lineage [/size],Trust me,Jesus was never married,He was to busy doing his Father's work.

Are you aware that there are a certain people in France who are believed to be the descendants of Jesus? You only read a book written in codes and hidden secrets. There are several secret scrolls about Jesus hidden in the Vatican library. All you know is what they want you to know. As a black man,they know you will defend the bible with all you life. That is exactly the space they want you to be.

^^^^^^
Yes indeed.
The Vatican has several miles of underground libraries whose books will never see the light of day.
Why?
What can be so secret about the wonderful and simple words of god and the wonderful story of his incarnation on earth?