The Wedding of Jesus

[Thomas]

So, what's your opinion about what I (or we, if my idea of a collaboration materializes) should do with it? Is it really worthy of an entry as a separate book, or would it be better placed as a footnote (or, possibly, suitably highlighted insertion) to the relevant parts of Mark's Gospel (after 10:34 and in the middle of 10:46)?

I'm not familiar with this gospel, but having had a quick look, and it's surrounded in mystery!

Do you have an opinion?

From a cursory look, at best I'd say this Secret / Mystic Mark belongs to the 2nd century apocrypha.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I'm not familiar with this gospel, but having had a quick look, and it's surrounded in mystery!

Do you have an opinion?

From a cursory look, at best I'd say this Secret / Mystic Mark belongs to the 2nd century apocrypha.

Isn't Secret Gospel of Mark that one some think was actually a 20th century forgery/hoax?

 

[Longfellow]

THE WEDDING OF JESUS

Now, please, hold on unto the stones, and no throwing at least until you hear what I have to say. Besides, that's not my final word. I am still researching the matter. I am partially submitting this topic for some second thoughts to make sure it remains no doubt in my mind.

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7; Luke 7:37-39; John 1:38; 3:2; 20:16. In many other instances he was addressed as Master which means the same. The point is that a Rabbi in Israel, then and today, had to be a married man or about to get married. Otherwise, he could not be "ordained" as such.

According to Judaism, after the proper procedure, the Jewish prospect would undergo the ceremonial "mikveh" or immersion in waters and, if not married yet, to take care of that before "ordination."

After Jesus' immersion in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, aka, Yohonan the Immerser, Jesus was seen during the next two days recruiting his disciples and on his way to Galilee. (John 1:35,43) Then on the third day after his mikveh, the family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene. Wait! Put down the stones! I'll explain.

First of all, and according to the custom, usually the mother of the Bride would be in charge of the celebrations, but probably Mary's parents had passed away because she used to live with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus in Bethany. I mean, they used to live with Mary who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a maiden servant, and Lazarus... well, I think he was a loafer boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick man anyway.

Okay, but back to the wedding, Jesus' mother Mary had to do the host job; and she did it quite well, by giving orders around to the servants. Also, according to the custom, the Bridegroom was in charge to provide the guests, especially with the wine, which Jesus, mind you, made sure it was of the best quality.

The tale of the miracle was interpolated much later to deviate the probing attention of those who have a mind of their own from finding out what was really going on in Canah.

After Jesus' wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus' come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene. It must have been a very spacious and beautiful home since Mary had the means to maintain it. Mind you that she would also take the tab for the expenses of Jesus' group of the Twelve, along with some other women of course who would pitch in from time to time. (Luke 8:2,3)

Whenever Jesus would return from his missionary campains throughout Israel, the address was Bethany. To his wife, obviously, although most the time Mary Magdalene would follow Jesus as his beloved disciple; but never like one of the Twelve.

The Church later interpolated John as the "beloved disciple" for the same reason to get the mind of the readers away from the thought that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. But it's not helping because the evidences are just too shouting.

Do we have any hint to pick up as evidence for any romantic approach prior or after their wedding? Of course, we do! After Jesus exorcized seven demons from Mary, she must have fallen in love with him. (Luke 8:1-3) The expression seven demons means only the struggle Jesus had to go through to extricate Mary from her not-so-reputable business in Magdala.

Then, in Bethany - where else? - when Mary was smearing Jesus' body with that expensive pefume, we all know, although we forbid ourselves to think about, that Mary did not just throw that perfume at him from afar. Definitely not! she did smear him almost all over even in terms of massage, so much so that some of the guests thought it to be unbecoming of Jesus to allow such a display. (Mat. 26:10-13; Luke 7:37-39)

Then, while everyone else would address Jesus as Rabbi, even his friend Nicodemus, (John 3:1,2) Mary would call him "Rabboni," a colloquial term used as an expression of love, especially by a Rabbi's wife. It also means "Master of my suffering," as Rachel named her son Benoni before she died from child birth. (Gen. 35:18) Jesus was the master of Mary's predicament especially with regards to the changing of her life style.

In another occasion, when Mary went to the tomb area after the crucifixion, and saw the empty tomb, she never suffered more in her life. She wanted to take him away with her. (John 20:15) Then, she was crying without consolation. In the middle of her travails, she saw a man standing by and took him as the Gardener. "Why are you crying?" the man asked. Of course, Jesus knew why, but he wanted to enjoy the answer from his beloved. Alas! She did not identify him; it was too dark. But then Jesus tried her name the way he used to call her: "Mary...!" It's hard to say it in writing, but Mary melted all down and exclaimed" "Raboni!"

This term "Raboni", or Master of my sufferings, is such a solemn and love-tender expression in Hebrew and Aramaic that only seldom it is used out of the frame of deep love. It was then that she jumped to hug him but Jesus, probably all in bandages, forbade her to cause him any unnecessary pain. He would meet her later at more propitious circumstances. (John 20:17)

Then, after some apparitions to the disciples, Jesus said goodbye and left his company. From then on, the names of these three peoples were never mentioned again; Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus yes, but only in connection with his teachings by the Nazarenes, a Jewish Sect organized by his Apostles. Joseph had to go along because if he had stayed, he would probably be crucified for having cheated on Pilate regarding Jesus who was not dead when he took him off the cross.

Today, there are three speculations about their whereabouts. The first is that they settled down incognito in Talpiot, a small town not too far south of Jerusalem, where some people have claimed to have found out the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Joseph. I went there personally but just to be told that the area could not be explored or visited by order of the local Meier for being under an Apartment building.

The second speculation is that they left Israel in the direction of Cashmere, India, where a Russian Archaeologist had found the graves of Yeshua, Miriam and Joseph under the sign of the shield of David.

And the third speculation is the one of the Da Vinci Code, that the three went to Europe and settled down in the Southern part of France in a small village. And that Mary gave birth to a daughter, who eventually got married into the Merovingian nobility.

Whatever happened after Jesus said goodbye to his disciples, I don't endorse anything that has been speculated. My point is only to verify the truth about Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene. If that's true without the shadow of a doubt, we have only to be joyful that Jesus fulfilled also the commandment to get married and father children. Besides, a married man only adds to his honour for being so. Why deny Jesus the pleasure of being a man by experiencing the love of a woman? Obviously, right?

Okay, now you can throw the stones. Nu! I am ready! Hello! Where is everybody? Hellooo! Well, I guess they all left. They must have got the idea that they all have feelings too.
Ben

It looks pretty plausible to me.

 

[Adrian Mole]

I'm not familiar with this gospel, but having had a quick look, and it's surrounded in mystery!

Do you have an opinion?

From a cursory look, at best I'd say this Secret / Mystic Mark belongs to the 2nd century apocrypha.

Not really - at first, I was with the "Modern Forgery" school-of-thought but, having just written up a parallel version, I'm now not so sure. Perhaps the early Church Fathers misunderstood the significance of the boy wearing nothing but a loincloth (which was the accepted dress for baptism) and decided it should be redacted?

Anyway, I shall add a sub-section to my "Early Christian Writings" for 'Works of Dubious Provenance' and include it in that. Here's a link to my parallel version (not yet listed in the tables but that will come in a few days): Secret Gospel of Mark.

 

[Thomas]

Isn't Secret Gospel of Mark that one some think was actually a 20th century forgery/hoax?

Some do ... I'm not expert enough to say.

Briefly:
The 'letter' was hand-written copy onto the blank endpapers of a 17th century edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch.
The letter was from Clement of Alexandria to a disciple.
The letter makes two quotations from the Secret Gospel of Mark (the Greek term is actually 'mystic' rather than 'secret'.)

Trouble is, this is the only reference anywhere of a Secret/Mystic Gospel.

The Decretum Gelasianum (5th/6th century) lists the canonical books, and over 60 apocryphal texts, but there's no mention of a Mystic Mark.
It does mention "the works of the other Clement, of Alexandria", which might mean the Mystic Mark, but then this 'other Clement' is unknown, and presumably sometime between the 2nd and 5th century.

So the Mystic Gospel of Mark is probably not by the Evangelist Mark, but a composite, an early Christian text offering an insight into the range of mystical speculation.

 

[badger]

THE WEDDING OF JESUS

Hello Ben! I'm a bit late to this thread and can only respond to your first paragraphs, but here goes......

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs: Matthew 23:7; Luke 7:37-39; John 1:38; 3:2; 20:16. In many other instances he was addressed as Master which means the same. The point is that a Rabbi in Israel, then and today, had to be a married man or about to get married. Otherwise, he could not be "ordained" as such.

Hmmmm..... After many years of study and debate I have placed my main attention on to G-Mark, but you found no verses in Mark to support your ideas...?
Yes, Jesus may have been married, I expect that most Jewish lads of about 14-16 years were married which is some time before the story begins in Mark. Maybe she died...many did, but Jesus was not a priest and I don't think that Pharisees were ordained unless they were also Temple priests (like Joseph of Arimathea).

According to Judaism, after the proper procedure, the Jewish prospect would undergo the ceremonial "mikveh" or immersion in waters and, if not married yet, to take care of that before "ordination."

How many northern Jews do you think we're Levites? Also, how many of the Temple priests do you think we're not Levites?

After Jesus' immersion in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, aka, Yohonan the Immerser, Jesus was seen during the next two days recruiting his disciples and on his way to Galilee. (John 1:35,43)

No. Jesus was only just to the South of Gallilee when he met John the Immerser and his first disciples were chosen on the shoreline of Capernaum, even though he had been with Andrew and Simon by the Jordan.

Then on the third day after his mikveh, the family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene. Wait! Put down the stones! I'll explain.

First of all, and according to the custom, usually the mother of the Bride would be in charge of the celebrations, but probably Mary's parents had passed away because she used to live with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus in Bethany. I mean, they used to live with Mary who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a maiden servant, and Lazarus... well, I think he was a loafer boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick man anyway.

Okay, but back to the wedding, Jesus' mother Mary had to do the host job; and she did it quite well, by giving orders around to the servants. Also, according to the custom, the Bridegroom was in charge to provide the guests, especially with the wine, which Jesus, mind you, made sure it was of the best quality.

If Mary arranged and held the marriage ceremony then she obtained all that cheaper wine....a lot of it, and that supports the traditions of Northern Jews who drank wine in preference to very dangerous water... So Mary and Jesus etc liked their wine, which teetotal Christians should take not of.

The tale of the miracle was interpolated much later to deviate the probing attention of those who have a mind of their own from finding out what was really going on in Canah.

The fact that the company drank all that wine and Mary called for more has to be brilliant testimony to the fact that Jesus et al loved their wine, and stories that reached the Baptist about Jesus could well have been true, rather than the lies of nasty priests....? Yep, I'll buy that.

By the way, as far as I can tell there are two possible locations for Canada, both near Sepphoris, and the one just to the NW of Nazareth hill looks very likely because then the married couple were neighbours of Mary and family.

After Jesus' wedding, you can check for yourselves, all Jesus' come-and-goes were from and to Bethany, the home of Mary Magdalene. It must have been a very spacious and beautiful home since Mary had the means to maintain it. Mind you that she would also take the tab for the expenses of Jesus' group of the Twelve, along with some other women of course who would pitch in from time to time. (Luke 8:2,3)

How about Magdala on the shoreline of Genesseret? (Spelling?)
Ergo, Mary of Magdala? Magdalene?

Whenever Jesus would return from his missionary campains throughout Israel, the address was Bethany. To his wife, obviously, although most the time Mary Magdalene would follow Jesus as his beloved disciple; but never like one of the Twelve.

All of Jesus's 'missionary' attempts were carried out through the Galilee, where his friends were split up into pairs and sent out in all directions to seek support.
That clearly did not go so well because then Jesus decided to go South to the Great Temple, maybe he could achieve his following there?

The Church later interpolated John as the "beloved disciple" for the same reason to get the mind of the readers away from the thought that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. But it's not helping because the evidences are just too shouting.

I think that Jesus and Magdalene were in love, yes. And indeed, the church did produce G-John which supplied much of the dogma, etc.

Do we have any hint to pick up as evidence for any romantic approach prior or after their wedding? Of course, we do! After Jesus exorcized seven demons from Mary, she must have fallen in love with him. (Luke 8:1-3) The expression seven demons means only the struggle Jesus had to go through to extricate Mary from her not-so-reputable business in Magdala.

Ah, there it is.....Magdala.
Hysteria is not an intimate subject for most humans, but it is to me and I can tell all that I have seen a person in an hysterical seizure resembling full stroke of left side, and also in a raving thrashing struggle, and also in a death like seizure. Hysteria can look like epileptic seizure. Hysteria takes on many forms and is quite prominent in males of Mediterranean Mid Eastern races. For several minutes after a seizure the person becomes very very calm, and I can imagine how many onlookers would have been amazed at a wise person's handling of an hysteric. I have seen a woman in a screaming thrashing fit stop instantly when a particular person entered the room and wish to dance with him.

Then, in Bethany - where else? - when Mary was smearing Jesus' body with that expensive pefume, we all know, although we forbid ourselves to think about, that Mary did not just throw that perfume at him from afar. Definitely not! she did smear him almost all over even in terms of massage, so much so that some of the guests thought it to be unbecoming of Jesus to allow such a display. (Mat. 26:10-13; Luke 7:37-39)

OK. No probs.

Then, while everyone else would address Jesus as Rabbi, even his friend Nicodemus, (John 3:1,2) Mary would call him "Rabboni," a colloquial term used as an expression of love, especially by a Rabbi's wife. It also means "Master of my suffering," as Rachel named her son Benoni before she died from child birth. (Gen. 35:18) Jesus was the master of Mary's predicament especially with regards to the changing of her life style.

No probs with any of that.

And now I've run out of time. I must read the rest of your post another time.

 

[RabbiO]

@badger -

Take your time reading and responding to the post. The person you responded to has not been on the forum in 13 years.

 

[badger]

@badger -

Take your time reading and responding to the post. The person you responded to has not been on the forum in 13 years.

Ha ha!
So I was slightly late in replying.

Never mind.

 

[Thomas]

As I missed this one first time round, as as it popped up again, I thought I'd join in.

Jesus was a Rabbi and here are the proofs ... a Rabbi in Israel, then and today, had to be a married man or about to get married. Otherwise, he could not be "ordained" as such.

This is wrong, as 'rabbi' in Jesus' day was a sign of respect, and did not mean the person was 'ordained'.

After Jesus' immersion in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, aka, Yohonan the Immerser, Jesus was seen during the next two days recruiting his disciples and on his way to Galilee. (John 1:35,43) Then on the third day after his mikveh, the family and friends were celebrating his wedding in Cana with Mary Magdalene. Wait! Put down the stones! I'll explain.

But Jesus was invited to the wedding: "And both Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding." (John 2:2)
I would have thought the only time a groom is invited to his wedding is when it's at the wrong end of a shotgun.

And the first verse "there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there" does not make sense if it was Jesus' wedding, as where else would his mother be?

First of all, and according to the custom, usually the mother of the Bride would be in charge of the celebrations, but probably Mary's parents had passed away because she used to live with her sister Martha and brother Lazarus in Bethany.

Er ... what leads one to conclude the bride is Mary of Magdal/Bethany? There's no scriptural evidence for that.

Nor, indeed, that Mary the mother of Jesus is standing in for the deceased mother of the bride ... it could have been the marriage of one of Jesus' family, one could as easily argue that it was the wedding of John the Baptist.

But that begs the question as to why the wedding was held in Cana ... and we simply have no answer.

I mean, they used to live with Mary who was the one well-to-do. Martha would pay her room-and-board as a maiden servant, and Lazarus... well, I think he was a loafer boy taking advantage of his rich sister. He was probably a sick man anyway.

Someone's let their imagination run free ...

No Scripture, no apocryphal text, nor gnostic text (I think), suggests Jesus was married.

Mary would call him "Rabboni," a colloquial term used as an expression of love, especially by a Rabbi's wife.

Wrong. ῥαββουν is an emphatic honorific – akin to 'great master', not an expression of love.