The Religion Thread

[TANGODANCER]

"On the third day after Jesus' baptism, there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.

Mark I:9-II

Not likely he'd receive an invitation to his own wedding?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

"On the third day after Jesus' baptism, there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.

Mark I:9-II

Not likely he'd receive an invitation to his own wedding?

John 2:1-11 (KJV)
And on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;
2 and both Jesus and His disciples were called to the marriage.
3 And when they lacked wine, the mother of Jesus said unto Him, “They have no wine.”
4 Jesus said unto her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”
5 His mother said unto the servants, “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.”
6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, holding twenty to thirty gallons apiece.
7 Jesus said unto them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And He said unto them, “Draw some out now, and bear it unto the governor of the feast.” And they took it.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, not knowing from whence it had come (but the servants who drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom
10 and said unto him, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have drunk well, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.”
11 This beginning of miracles Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.

Apart from the fact Jesus was called to the wedding (which doesn't make a great deal of sense if it's his own I agree, but isn't a complete killer to the theory), there's nothing else in there that contradicts it being Christ's own wedding and plenty that supports it.
Line 4 is more mysterious than any of it and could probably shed some light if it could be interpretated properly.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't believe I wrote interpretated.

[TANGODANCER]

Line 9:
"The govenor of the feast called the bridegroom". Note, not called Jesus, but the bridegroom, surely indicating they are seperate people?

Why would Jesus and his disciples be called to the wedding if it was that of himself?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Line 9:
"The govenor of the feast called the bridegroom". Note, not called Jesus, but the bridegroom, surely indicating they are seperate people?

Why would Jesus and his disciples be called to the wedding if it was that of himself?

As I noted that (the calling to the wedding) doesn't help the theory and can be used as evidence that the theory is bollox. But however, it has been noted that some traditional Semitic weddings have seperate feasts prior to the nuptuals for men and women, and after the feasts the men are summoned to the bride's house where they cart the bride off to the man's village. As I said previously, in line 4 Jesus says “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” - this has been taken to mean he should be at his own seperate feast (if he is the bridegroom) and has been summoned prematurely to the womens feast. It is to be noted that no modern scholar can say for sure which of the known traditional wedding practices the Aramaic speaking Jewish Galileeans followed.

As for the governor calling the bridegroom and not Jesus that can have interpretations other than they are two seperate people, they can still be the same person but simply described differently. Indeed if you (the author of John) wanted to clarify this fact that's exactly whay you would do.

Now, I'm arguing this from a purely academic viewpoint, I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea it was his wedding - but if you don't dismiss it out of hand and approach from a fresh perspective it is a fascinating (and, to me, believable) theory.
I'm presuming you are anti this theory based on a Catholic viewpoint?

[TANGODANCER]

I'm presuming you are anti this theory based on a Catholic viewpoint?

Short answer, don't know. I'd have to see some more evidence than is available. There doesn't seem much either way but the long held theory that he wasn't married is the one that needs disproving for me. There's also this:

And when they lacked wine, the mother of Jesus said unto Him, “They have no wine.”
4 Jesus said unto her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.”

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm presuming you are anti this theory based on a Catholic viewpoint?

Short answer, don't know. I'd have to see some more evidence than is available. There doesn't seem much either way but the long held theory that he wasn't married is the one that needs disproving for me.

Again, no real argument from me there. Only brought it up because of BBCs magazine article - which I've not actually read yet (just gave it a perfunctory skim over).

[Montreal Wanderer]

There won't be any kind of proof I fear. If we assume Jesus was a man, a rabbi and a prophet, but not a messiah, as many believe (including Jews and Muslims), then it would be quite likely he got married. If, however, we believe he was the son of God and never married, we are reading the version of the tale created much later. The Fathers of the Church took four gospels and rejected the rest. Some of the rejected gospels did state Christ was married. Similarly, the Gospel of Judas gives his side of the story in which he states the betrayal was on the specific instructions of Christ, who knew what would and had to happen. By rejecting most of these texts the early Fathers took away our ability to see all early accounts of Christ's life and thus allow us to draw our own opinions.

For myself, I believe that Christ did exist but that he was a man.

[thebish]

personally I don't know why anyone would be that bothered either way - whether he was married or not... I don't see what difference it makes...

[Gary the Enfield]

personally I don't know why anyone would be that bothered either way - whether he was married or not... I don't see what difference it makes...

Progeny?

[TANGODANCER]

There won't be any kind of proof I fear. If we assume Jesus was a man, a rabbi and a prophet, but not a messiah, as many believe (including Jews and Muslims), then it would be quite likely he got married. If, however, we believe he was the son of God and never married, we are reading the version of the tale created much later. The Fathers of the Church took four gospels and rejected the rest. Some of the rejected gospels did state Christ was married. Similarly, the Gospel of Judas gives his side of the story in which he states the betrayal was on the specific instructions of Christ, who knew what would and had to happen. By rejecting most of these texts the early Fathers took away our ability to see all early accounts of Christ's life and thus allow us to draw our own opinions.

For myself, I believe that Christ did exist but that he was a man.

Jesus was born of Mary, so was obviously, bodily a man. (Please note the next bit is what I believe so no need for ecclesiastical machine guns). He was also a man who was the son of God, created by God and with a divine mission as his life. This part was his mind and soul, as when we die, they are all that lives on. This might also explain the assencion into heaven in a different way, as why do we need our bodies when we die? Messiah, as I'm sure you know, is Hebrew for the annointed one. I have long held a belief (and stated it many times) that finding what was the word of God from that of man is a difficult task, due in large part to what you say above. The Catholic religion is led by the Pope who is a succesor of a long line of such beginning with Peter. As Catholics our doctrine comes from the Vatican and we believe it to be the true one. What else has happened along the way,or how to truly interpret it all, no one truly knows.

[Montreal Wanderer]

There won't be any kind of proof I fear. If we assume Jesus was a man, a rabbi and a prophet, but not a messiah, as many believe (including Jews and Muslims), then it would be quite likely he got married. If, however, we believe he was the son of God and never married, we are reading the version of the tale created much later. The Fathers of the Church took four gospels and rejected the rest. Some of the rejected gospels did state Christ was married. Similarly, the Gospel of Judas gives his side of the story in which he states the betrayal was on the specific instructions of Christ, who knew what would and had to happen. By rejecting most of these texts the early Fathers took away our ability to see all early accounts of Christ's life and thus allow us to draw our own opinions.

For myself, I believe that Christ did exist but that he was a man.

Jesus was born of Mary, so was obviously, bodily a man. (Please note the next bit is what I believe so no need for ecclesiastical machine guns). He was also a man who was the son of God, created by God and with a divine mission as his life. This part was his mind and soul, as when we die, they are all that lives on. This might also explain the assencion into heaven in a different way, as why do we need our bodies when we die? Messiah, as I'm sure you know, is Hebrew for the annointed one. I have long held a belief (and stated it many times) that finding what was the word of God from that of man is a difficult task, due in large part to what you say above. The Catholic religion is led by the Pope who is a succesor of a long line of such beginning with Peter. As Catholics our doctrine comes from the Vatican and we believe it to be the true one. What else has happened along the way,or how to truly interpret it all, no one truly knows.

As you know I meant just a man like you and me (perhaps a lot smarter) and not the Son of God. One of the problems with Catholic dogma is that popes change their minds about previous doctrine even when both have spoken ex cathedra. Sometimes popes were nice chaps and sometimes not so nice. Once we had three popes. All of which shows that man, with all his imperfections, has intruded into these matters and we cannot know which ones truly speak for God. Do Catholics assume the current dogma is the true one?

[TANGODANCER]

I'm not the world's best practising Catholic Monty, but I believe Catholics in general do hold with what they always have done. The less than perfect Popes of history don't inspire much confidence and doctrines do change. What credibility to lost gospels should be given is determined by our leading lights. That said, your beliefs are your own and religion is a pretty proof-less entity at best. "In God we trust, all others please pay cash".

The pic is my birthday present from the wife last week. Is she trying to tell me something?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm not the world's best practising Catholic Monty, but I believe Catholics in general do hold with what they always have done. The less than perfect Popes of history don't inspire much confidence and doctrines do change. What credibility to lost gospels should be given is determined by our leading lights. That said, your beliefs are your own and religion is a pretty proof-less entity at best. "In God we trust, all others please pay cash".

The pic is my birthday present from the wife last week. Is she trying to tell me something?

Yes, since it is the KJV, she thinks it is clearly time you became a Protestant.

[Hoboh]

I'm not the world's best practising Catholic Monty, but I believe Catholics in general do hold with what they always have done. The less than perfect Popes of history don't inspire much confidence and doctrines do change. What credibility to lost gospels should be given is determined by our leading lights. That said, your beliefs are your own and religion is a pretty proof-less entity at best. "In God we trust, all others please pay cash".

The pic is my birthday present from the wife last week. Is she trying to tell me something?

I see you've not fixed that cracked tile yet!

[TANGODANCER]

Yes, since it is the KJV, she thinks it is clearly time you became a Protestant.

She's C of E Monty and probably won't know the difference. Not sure I do myself these days.
The Vatican have changed so many things. There was a big controversy a while back about changing the wording in missals etc. I much preferred the time it was all in Latin and there was none of this leaping about and shaking hands and stuff during the mass. I just deal with head office mainly these days.

[thebish]

personally I don't know why anyone would be that bothered either way - whether he was married or not... I don't see what difference it makes...

Progeny?

nor do I see what difference that would make - you'll have to enlighten me!

[Gary the Enfield]

personally I don't know why anyone would be that bothered either way - whether he was married or not... I don't see what difference it makes...

Progeny?

nor do I see what difference that would make - you'll have to enlighten me!

You wouldn't want to know if Jesus had a family? I'm not a particularly religious person (anymore) but I would be more than curious to see what the son of god's great great great great great (plus however many's) grandson would look like or be like. Wouldn't you? Perhaps he'd have some family heirlooms knocking about, the odd grail or somesuch.

[thebish]

You wouldn't want to know if Jesus had a family? I'm not a particularly religious person (anymore) but I would be more than curious to see what the son of god's great great great great great (plus however many's) grandson would look like or be like. Wouldn't you? Perhaps he'd have some family heirlooms knocking about, the odd grail or somesuch.

in a word - no!

(as it happens I'm fairly sure he didn't have kids - but I'd not be that interested if he did... In the same way I am a Bob Dylan fan - but I'm not interested in his kids or grandkids and I don't know if he has any or if he does how many and what their names are... same with all the Bolton players - did Nat Lofthouse have kids, grand-kids? am I interested in seeing what they look like? nahhhh!)

[Lost Leopard Spot]

personally I don't know why anyone would be that bothered either way - whether he was married or not... I don't see what difference it makes...

Progeny?

nor do I see what difference that would make - you'll have to enlighten me!

It's not going to make any difference to my life, and I'm not (as such) bothered about it. But I do find it a fascinating subject as a matter of historical interest. It's like many an historical observation where convention says one thing but careful research can show it is another thing entirely (as for instance in the case of Troy where it was held to be pure myth and then along came Schliemann and turned convention on its head by demonstrating that there was a reality behind the Homeric myths, and the fact that Schliemann's view became the new orthodoxy and that that in its turn was overthrown by even more careful research) That's why it makes a difference (to me anyway).