HUH?! No, let me start again, since I guess I wasn’t clear enough the first time.
Jesus’s mother (who was a guest at the wedding) called Jesus and his disciples to the wedding when the wine ran out. Obviously the wine didn’t run out before the wedding. That was my first quote. That means that Jesus obviously was not the groom, because the groom would be at the wedding, and not have to be called.
The second passage I quoted states that the ruler of the feast called the groom to him and congratulated him for bringing out the best wine last, instead of the cheap stuff. He did not call Jesus, he called the groom. Two different people. It’s really very clear if you just read what it says.
It should not be necessary to say “Jesus’s mother was at a wedding, which was not Jesus’s wedding, and when they ran out of wine, she called Jesus to the wedding that was not his, and said ‘Son, make some new wine for this wedding of two other people, neither of whom is you, so that we can continue to feast for these other people’s wedding,’” to know that it wasn’t his wedding. Since the book is ABOUT Jesus, if it was his wedding, it would say so, for crying out loud.
Do you require everything to be explicitly told to you before believe it in other areas too? Or is that special behavior for arguing over the bible? When somebody says “Hey, I want you to meet my wife,” do you demand to see the certificate, just in case he’s trying to pull a fast one? Of course not. That would be stupid. If you use common sense, it’s plain.
First, No. However when someone asserts flat out “Jesus wasn’t married,” I’d kind of like to know where he got that idea from. Same goes if he asserts the Big Guy was married.
Second: For many years, my job in the military actually did require me to verify marriage certificates, death certificates, birth certificates, and divorce decrees. Usually when someone was introducing me to his wife, it was step one to getting the dependent allowances and thus, by regulation, I had to verify the paperwork involved. (I didn’t socialize too much on base so I didn’t know everyone.) I’ve even caught a few people pulling a fast one.
Third: “Common Sense” argument doesn’t prove a thing.
Considering Jesus’s strong association with wine, both at the wedding of Cana and in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, I don’t think he was a Nazirite. Nazirites don’t drink wine.
DrTom827, as I read your post, I had the feeling you were way off base, though it is an interesting scenario you put forth. I figured I had you when you equated “Johnathan” (your spelling) with “John”. Of course, in Hebrew, JONATHAN is Yonathan, and JOHN is Yohanan–similar, but not the same name. Would these really have gotten confused by the writers of the time?
Anyone can make a mistake, of course, but the two names are quite different in Hebrew. There wasn’t the modern English similarity of “Jon” and “John” (Galsworthy evidently pronounced the two differently, by the way) to fuddle people.
Might want to check out, “The Templar Revelation”. I mention this for serious researchers only as they do indeed have a large reference section listed to back up their claims. How much liberty they took with those claims is itself a matter of debate, at least for me (since I don’t have the time or resources myself to check them out!), but they did seem to argue their points pretty conclusively. I especially liked the authors’ final chapter, which presents three seperate (sorta) conclusions which would fit all the evidence found (or only what they chose to present?).
However, as the reader who does pick it up will soon surmise, it is a tale about secret societies since the dawn of Christianity, and so any scholar who does attempt such a work will, in many circles, be laughed out of their public research. In this way, of course, if you accept the author’s conclusion you will also be laughed about in some circles. However, I am very much a supporter of the Jesus/MM love connection.
I will not possibly spoil the book for it is an incredible read, and anyone who is seriously interested in Christianity should check it out.
And indeed in the Gospel according to Luke, Chapter 1, it is explicitly mentioned that it is not Jesus, but his maternal-line relative John the Baptist, who was given the consecration of the Nazirite (“he shall not taste wine nor other strong drink”)
(And btw regarding an earlier comment, the “Gospel of John” [sub]different John[/sub] IS called the “Gospel of our Lord Jesus according to John”, at least in the Catholic Church)
As to the wedding at Cana, just plain reading the passage in question it seems obvious that the groom and Jesus are two different persons. However, whoever it was, it does seem that Mary (JC’s mama) was an important member of the family, since they went to her for help getting out of a bind (or she was recognized as the one skilled in making the best of a bad situation).
As Cecil covers in his column, the popular characterization of Mary Magdalene is a merge of her plus other female characters in the gospels plus imagination.
But John’s telling of a story about a special, personal, early apparition of Jesus to her (identified specifically) does hint at that the real Maddie, whoever she was, was more than just a camp follower or even a close personal pal. She is a valued disciple, if short of actual apostleship (BTW the Apostle John is also identified as having been close and dear to JC), who can handle getting this revelation with her own eyes and ears w/o freaking out.
The point in the Gospel is how whatever personal link existed is transcended by this new reality (the Resurrection) and how she was able to assimilate this and bear the news to the rest of the congregation. Her later disappearance from the paper trail, seems an apparent result of patriarchy affirming itself once the Boss wasn’t around in person. Believers may wish to imagine Him telling the boys a thing or two about that when they met again
OTOH, with all due respect, them Merovingians be whack.
