-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Wedding of Jesus
- Thread starter Ben Avraham
- Start date
What you are doing here is very simple. You are inventing stories about Jesus for which there is no particular evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, you firmly believe this because you feel it "must" be true.
This looks exactly like the process that resulted in all the implausible legends about Jesus. From the Virgin birth to the Resurrection, people kept inventing stories based on what they wanted to be true. Over time, this process going on in parallel communities resulted in a sort of competition. Who could write the most flattering and inspiring Gospel. It culminated, apparently, with the Gospel According to John. By then, nobody remembered much of anything about the historical Jesus.
And Christianity became a new religion.
Tom
IMO "What you are doing here is very simple. You are inventing stories about Jesus for which there is no particular evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, you firmly believe this because you feel it "must" be true."
John is in line with the other Gospels and according to James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I'm not opposed to Jesus being married. I think an argument could be made for it. However, this isn't the way to do so. The argument about a Rabbi is simply not relevant to Jesus. What you speak of in regards to a Rabbi (which can be debated as well), would only hold true in Rabbinical Judaism.
Rabbinical Judaism grew out of the destruction of the Jewish Temple, around 4 decades after the death of Jesus. It would take even longer for it to fully develop and mature. The point is, Rabbinical Judaism was not around during the time of Jesus, and the term Rabbi, as it is applied today, would not reflect on the time of Jesus. For Jesus, the term rabbi would have meant teacher. Nothing more or less. What may be true today about a Rabbi isn't the same as it was when Jesus lived.
You're conflating ideas. The baptism by John is set in a very different perspective than a wedding. To refer to it in anyway associated with a wedding it to take it out of context, and ignore the rest of the story.
The wedding or celebration at Cana is probably the best argument for a marriage of Jesus, but the story is incomplete. Looking at the passage, it is clear that portions of it are missing. We can be sure of that as the transitions between passages are choppy in places, and seem to be missing information. But the story says nothing about John the Baptist, and to put him as an officiant simply interjects your views into the story, while ignoring what is known about John.
Modern day Israel, and what you experienced, is different from 1st century Palestine. Just because something occurs today, doesn't mean it is a reflection on the past. The argument simply doesn't work.
You're conflating two Mary's Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene, who is probably from Magdala (wherever that might be. Such is suggested by her name. Either way, she isn't to be confused with Mary of Bethany).
Mary Magdalene may have supported the 12, but so did many others. That fact really means nothing besides that Jesus had decent support.
Jesus doesn't always return to Bethany. Bethany is mentioned very little. Just because he does one time means nothing. More so, you conflated two Mary.
There is no evidence that the Church interpolated John as the beloved disciple. Really, the beloved disciple isn't named. There are theories, and the current one is that a community created the Gospel of John. The idea that Mary would be the loved disciple simply isn't supported in any version of the text we have, nor in any early sources we have on the subject.
Claiming that the Church did it really is a weak argument, and removes your argument largely to the field of conspiracy theory.
You're again conflating two Marys, as you do in the next paragraph as well. Mary Magdalene is never said to be possessed by seven demons, nor is she said to smear Jesus' body with perfume. The woman with demons isn't even said to be a Mary, but was only very late on said to be a Mary in order to simplify the narrative.
A lot of your argument relies on this conflation of various other women with Mary Magdalene, when none of them are actually Mary Magdalene. The foundation of your argument then crumbles.
All three speculations that you mention are without merit though. The Da Vinci Code one is an admitted lie by the creator of the theory. The India one is based on one text, which not surprisingly, can't be accessed by anyone, and the one about Talpiot is pushed by one scholar who even admits that the evidence can't be fully substantiated, but that it remains a possibility, even though it can't be supported. (Part of the claim rests on the assumption that the James ossuary was removed from that tomb; however, such an assumption is recognized as not being able to be supported because the evidence is lacking).
Basically, the speculations, from a scholarly or historical perspective, are useless as their just isn't any corroborating evidence supporting any one of those three possibilities.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Assuming it was known that Jesus' father was a Levite, he still would have only spent about a month a year actually at the Temple. There were many more priests an Levites than what the Temple needed dor the majority of the year. They worked on rotation.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi Tumah....
I cannot figure how a Galilean peasant's bloodline could have connected back to Levite lineage, though.
I always believed that 2000 priests (all of them) were required to be present at the three major feasts, and that 6000 levites (including 'extras' of some kind?) were required to be present as Temple guards, etc.
How far out am I?
But Joseph, a land-displaced peasant handworker..... a Levite? Could that be possible?
All of which are implausible stories. They all resemble the sort of legends that would be produced by the process that the OP is using, making up stories that "must" be true but for which there is no evidence. The longer this process continues the less plausible the stories. Eventually Jesus gets deified in the imaginations of His followers followers grandchildren.
Despite the utter lack of any reasons to Believe except humans telling stories with murky agendas.
The oldest version of the oldest Gospel, Mark, doesn't even include the Resurrection.
Tom
Well interesting and appealing and involved. Is any of it true? Probably not, who really knows but I do like how this makes Mary a more important part of the story!!!!
Tumah
Veteran Member
I don't understand what you mean. Why not?
For the feasts yes. But that was only three times a year. The rest of the time they had to lived like everyone else, except a dew weeks a year when it was their family's turn to serve.
Mishmarot & Ma'amadot
I really don't understand why this should sound odd to you. There were priests and levites living everywhere as far as I know, accepting tithes and priestly gifts.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, if most Galileans did not convert until the 'time' of Babylon, then their bloodline could never have originated from the early times when the Levite 'tribe' (?) came about. ?? ..... sort of thing?
I didn't know that.
OK..... I must find out more about tithes and gifts.
Thankyou.....
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yes....... so do I respect their morals.
I notice that you are a Presbyterian. I admit that I don't know how that differs from Baptist, or Lutheran or the many other hundreds of Creeds. This is because my research about Jesus ends with his execution, burial etc, and I have never studied Christianity. I am a Deist.
There are web sites that attract mostly Christians, and the arguments between them can be very heated. Indeed, the distancing between some denominations seems to be huge, as each believes thev other will fail to achieve salvation.
But most of all of them would not be fools, and I know many agnostics, atheists, and a few Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who could never be so described.
All I could say to them, as I would say to you, is that I hope you are all right, even though that might not be possible.
And yet millions (along with myself), of which there are also many intellectuals of extreme capacity in critical thinking, don't agree with your position. Such is the free will of people.
Actually, he was from the tribe of Judah and not a Levite
Yes....... so do I respect their morals.
I notice that you are a Presbyterian. I admit that I don't know how that differs from Baptist, or Lutheran or the many other hundreds of Creeds. This is because my research about Jesus ends with his execution, burial etc, and I have never studied Christianity. I am a Deist.
There are web sites that attract mostly Christians, and the arguments between them can be very heated. Indeed, the distancing between some denominations seems to be huge, as each believes thev other will fail to achieve salvation.
But most of all of them would not be fools, and I know many agnostics, atheists, and a few Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who could never be so described.
All I could say to them, as I would say to you, is that I hope you are all right, even though that might not be possible.
Let me say the main difference in Christianity is between liberal theology and conservative theology. In conservative theology, we differ on some minor points, but agree 100% on major doctrines---Jesus is God---He died for our sins---Salvation is by faith in Jesus alone, not work, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and a few more.
Liberal theology rejects the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and most of the what is attributed to what is recorded Jesus having done and or said. IMO a religion like that is worthless. While overall church attendance is declining, it is declining faster in liberal churches and conservative denomination are gaining in attendance. Why" IMO, it is because we have a more positive message.
As one of the conservative side (non-denominational) - I liken it to a house that can have a 3 bedroom 2 bath split plan, all on one side, high ceiling, low ceiling etc. As omega said, it isn't the little differences that really amount to us (different house plans) -- as long as the foundation is square and solid (major doctrines).Yes....... so do I respect their morals.
I notice that you are a Presbyterian. I admit that I don't know how that differs from Baptist, or Lutheran or the many other hundreds of Creeds. This is because my research about Jesus ends with his execution, burial etc, and I have never studied Christianity. I am a Deist.
There are web sites that attract mostly Christians, and the arguments between them can be very heated. Indeed, the distancing between some denominations seems to be huge, as each believes thev other will fail to achieve salvation.
But most of all of them would not be fools, and I know many agnostics, atheists, and a few Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs who could never be so described.
All I could say to them, as I would say to you, is that I hope you are all right, even though that might not be possible.
Good analogy. It reminds me of the parable about the man who built his house on the, not a rock and it withstood the storms of life and the man who built his house on sand and it fell when the storms of life came.
It is even more meaningful when we see Jesus personified as the Rock. My favorite on is I Cor 10:4 which is a reference to the water that came from from the rock Moses struck in the wilderness- they all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them and the rock was Christ.
Then we read in Eph 5:26 that water is a metaphor for God's word and Jn 15:3 that we are already clean because of Jesus' word(singular).
There is a lot more rock theology, but that is for another time. Hopefully is to whet appetites.
O taste and see that the Lord is good---Psa 34:8a
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Thankyou and @KenS for your basic explanations about liberal and conservative Christianity. That is the very first time in my life that I have heard of lib and con Christianity. Straight up.
I am not a Christian and I don't really know why I became interested in the life and mission of Jesus, I decided to read a couple of bibles (KHV and New English) back in 1994 as a reaearch project, and G-Mark just caught my attention in a way that I couldn't stop thinking about. That's why I study historical Jesus.
Sometimes you folks will debate furiously against me, but at other times you might find that I am debating (against such as the mythers) right alongside of you.
What can I say?
Thankyou and @KenS for your basic explanations about liberal and conservative Christianity. That is the very first time in my life that I have heard of lib and con Christianity. Straight up.
I am not a Christian and I don't really know why I became interested in the life and mission of Jesus, I decided to read a couple of bibles (KHV and New English) back in 1994 as a reaearch project, and G-Mark just caught my attention in a way that I couldn't stop thinking about. That's why I study historical Jesus.
Sometimes you folks will debate furiously against me, but at other times you might find that I am debating (against such as the mythers) right alongside of you.
What can I say?
I was in your shoes for 45 years. The main attitude in studying any subject, especially a religion, is to desire to know the truth. You seem to have that.
2 Chronicales 15:14-15 - Moreover they made a loud oath to the Lord with a loud voice, with shouting, , with trumpets and with horns. All Judah rejoiced considering the oath , for they had sworn with their whole heart and they had sought Him earnestly, and He let them find Him. So the Lord gave them rest on ever side.
Ken the question was actually raised by BSM1, not by Tumah who was actually commenting on what the implications would be.
