Jesus was surrounded with many women, and wealthy ones at that (Luke 8:2-3), and "many others who ministered to Him of their substance"; they apparently waited on Him, prepared dinner for Him, and washed His feet and listened to His teaching. For that place and era, the imagery strikes me as remarkable, perhaps even unusual.
But that element of celibacy seems persistent in Christianity, from what we we gather from its earliest records. Mark is correct, the Church regarded herself "The Bride", one which was to maintain herself as an undefiled virgin. Those married to God, who enslaved their flesh to the Spirit, becoming worthy of that Kingdom of the other Aeon, and equal to the angels in heaven.
The talk is that "married Jesus" is from the Gnostics. But didn't the Gnostics believe that Jesus was a non-physical entity and therefore incapable of an intimate encounter?
I think Jesus was a physical person who became one with Christ and whether or not he was married or not has no bearing on the out come of what he did as a man or as one with God.
A man subject to like passions as we are yet able to go beyond the boundaries of human existance and attain that which had been unattainable in the past. Making the entire fortune of God's treasures accessable to men and women who have not even considered the implications of what Jesus did and acclomplished.
And it is Christ who has the bride of which Jesus is also subject to. Although he is the one with the name above all names and at the right hand of God that God gave him. And we are to sit with him in this remarkable position.
I saw a special on Discovery, A&E, National Geographic - one of those channels on the bloodline and DNA of the descendants of Jesus and Mary.
They were able to get DNA from Catherine of Aragon (I think that was her name) who is entombed in a church in France, one of those european countries, who died in 600 AD and is considered one of the direct descendants of the union of Jesus and Mary. Her offspring are also descendents - they are Merogovians.
The thesis was, that if she was a direct descendant of this union, she would have DNA markers of middle eastern people in her DNA - a remnant.
They then took DNA from one of the last remaining peoples who speak aramaic in the middle east, descended from the area Christ came from.
Well, anyway, Catherine turned out to have no, none, nada, middle eastern DNA genetic markers - she's all european, all the way. So, the whole thesis of his book is shot.
It had a lot more things that were easily debunked. Good show, if its on again, I'll let you know.
Christ's bride being the church is a doctrine not espoused by all branches of Christianity.
I have always thought that Christ must have been married. The wedding in Cana--it was the grooms family responsibility to provide the wine. The scene at Cana only makes sense if in fact it is Jesus' wedding-his mother coming to him to tell him that the wine is gone-his responsibility-that explains why he went ahead and changed the water to wine even after saying his "time had not come" he had to fulfill his responsibility as the groom. After his death Mary Magdalene going to the tomb , in some gospels with her friends, annointing the body was the job of the females of the family of the deceased--so where is his mother Mary where are his sisters?? Mary Magdalene going only mkaes sense if she was his wife.
Catherine of Aragon was the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile (Christopher Columbus' financiers) she was wed first to Prince Arthur of England son of HenryVII of the house of Tudor. After Arthur's death a papal dispensation was acquired so she could become the wife of Arthurs brother the future HenryVIII. It was Catherine's inability to produce a male heir that led Henry to try and get the marriage declared null and void by the Pope, when that failed he separated from the papacy and the Church of England was established. He then divorced Catherine and married Ann Boleyn who was the mother of Elizabeth I of England. I have never heard that Catherine of Aragon was considered to be a decendent of Jesus, she most certainly wasn't considered to be so in her own time,
I saw some of that show. I was doing stuff when it was on and caught parts of it. I think it was THAT show where the priest was talking about how terrible it is to say Jesus was married that got me thinking about whether he could have been.
I wasn't paying much attention when they got to the Merogovian part but I heard a little of it. Thanks for the summary. I'd like to see the whole thing.
After the signing of the ketuvah, which is usually accompanied by some light snacks and some hard liquor for the traditional lechaims (the Jewish salute when drinking, which means, "to life!"), the groom does the bedekin, or "veiling." The groom, together with his father and future father-in-law, is accompanied by musicians and the male guests to the room where the bride is receiving her guests. She sits, like a queen, on a throne-like chair surrounded by her family and friends. The groom, who has not seen her for a week (an eternity for a young couple!), covers her face with her veil. This ceremony is mainly for the legal purpose of the groom identifying the bride before the wedding.
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
No, no, no....absence of a verse that said he would doesn't mean he wasn't..c'mon ;)
btw...I think the Jesus married Mary theory popped out of someone's foot...but let's not get illogical here -_-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Jesus was surrounded with many women, and wealthy ones at that (Luke 8:2-3), and "many others who ministered to Him of their substance"; they apparently waited on Him, prepared dinner for Him, and washed His feet and listened to His teaching. For that place and era, the imagery strikes me as remarkable, perhaps even unusual.
But that element of celibacy seems persistent in Christianity, from what we we gather from its earliest records. Mark is correct, the Church regarded herself "The Bride", one which was to maintain herself as an undefiled virgin. Those married to God, who enslaved their flesh to the Spirit, becoming worthy of that Kingdom of the other Aeon, and equal to the angels in heaven.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Danny,
The talk is that "married Jesus" is from the Gnostics. But didn't the Gnostics believe that Jesus was a non-physical entity and therefore incapable of an intimate encounter?
Edited by lovemattersLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I would like to hear further elaboration on this myself. Something to do with the Cathars, I think,
amidst all the recent "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" hype.
"Gnostics" were not a homogenous group, all sharing all the same theories, opinions and beliefs.
No more than us today.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I think Jesus was a physical person who became one with Christ and whether or not he was married or not has no bearing on the out come of what he did as a man or as one with God.
A man subject to like passions as we are yet able to go beyond the boundaries of human existance and attain that which had been unattainable in the past. Making the entire fortune of God's treasures accessable to men and women who have not even considered the implications of what Jesus did and acclomplished.
And it is Christ who has the bride of which Jesus is also subject to. Although he is the one with the name above all names and at the right hand of God that God gave him. And we are to sit with him in this remarkable position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
I can’t remember anyone ever referring to Jesus and Christ as two separate beings, dancing.
Are you going to a church that thinks like that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Danny,
Last night I decided to mosey on down to The Center for Marcionite Research Library and do some reading up. (I'd forgotten what a great evangelist he was.)
Ray Embry has it that Marcion wasn’t a Gnostic but was branded as such by his rivals.
Is that common knowledge among Marcion scholars?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It's one opinion among many - not what I would consider common knowlege.
Marcion cannot necessarily be pidgeonholed exclusively into
either "gnostic" or "orthodox" fields - his ideas appear to me to
be an interesting blend of ideas from both camps.
The Marcionites had their churches, their bishops, their Bibles, their sacraments.
In many respects they bore a striking resemblance to their rival sister.
Warnings were even issued to those when passing through any village in search for the Catholic church,
not to wander into a Marcionite Church by mistake.
It was like Apple versus Microsoft, MacDonalds versus Burger King, Pepsi versus Coke. Which would you decide? You make the call!
:unsure:
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I saw a special on Discovery, A&E, National Geographic - one of those channels on the bloodline and DNA of the descendants of Jesus and Mary.
They were able to get DNA from Catherine of Aragon (I think that was her name) who is entombed in a church in France, one of those european countries, who died in 600 AD and is considered one of the direct descendants of the union of Jesus and Mary. Her offspring are also descendents - they are Merogovians.
The thesis was, that if she was a direct descendant of this union, she would have DNA markers of middle eastern people in her DNA - a remnant.
They then took DNA from one of the last remaining peoples who speak aramaic in the middle east, descended from the area Christ came from.
Well, anyway, Catherine turned out to have no, none, nada, middle eastern DNA genetic markers - she's all european, all the way. So, the whole thesis of his book is shot.
It had a lot more things that were easily debunked. Good show, if its on again, I'll let you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
The most masculine of all masculinity and the most femine of all femininity.
Male and Female created him both in one.
There is no separation when that which is joined together.
So shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife.
Said before eating of the tree.
Still true.
And the one is still true.
Exemplified in Jesus a man.
With the courage to put himself aside and leave his father and mother and be joined as one.
I and my father are one. Why?
There is no separation between God and Christ.
A grave error of twi and many of course.
Jesus, subject to like passions as we are yet put that away to see...to see.
What has been seen.
What were these prophets seeing by the spirit of Christ.
That there would be something made known that was hid.
Jesus, no longer himself, the Christ.
The son of the living God.
And he calls us brothers.
Male and female, the less shall be served by the greater.
Holy Spirit, always of the femine nature in the hebrew.
Lost in the greek.
Ye are gods, sitting there waiting to be discovered like a new born babe.
Subject to the Father of spirits.
Seeing they see not...what was seen by many that was not seen by many.
How close does this living life sit dormant, sleeping.
Waiting for the mind to want it so bad that nothing will stop it.
It sits there in the mind that God put there.
We see shadows of the spirit, the perception becomes real.
The things thought that are not God has said that they are.
Invisable things from the creation of the world.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Are you still here lovematters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Christ's bride being the church is a doctrine not espoused by all branches of Christianity.
I have always thought that Christ must have been married. The wedding in Cana--it was the grooms family responsibility to provide the wine. The scene at Cana only makes sense if in fact it is Jesus' wedding-his mother coming to him to tell him that the wine is gone-his responsibility-that explains why he went ahead and changed the water to wine even after saying his "time had not come" he had to fulfill his responsibility as the groom. After his death Mary Magdalene going to the tomb , in some gospels with her friends, annointing the body was the job of the females of the family of the deceased--so where is his mother Mary where are his sisters?? Mary Magdalene going only mkaes sense if she was his wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Catherine of Aragon was the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile (Christopher Columbus' financiers) she was wed first to Prince Arthur of England son of HenryVII of the house of Tudor. After Arthur's death a papal dispensation was acquired so she could become the wife of Arthurs brother the future HenryVIII. It was Catherine's inability to produce a male heir that led Henry to try and get the marriage declared null and void by the Pope, when that failed he separated from the papacy and the Church of England was established. He then divorced Catherine and married Ann Boleyn who was the mother of Elizabeth I of England. I have never heard that Catherine of Aragon was considered to be a decendent of Jesus, she most certainly wasn't considered to be so in her own time,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
dancing,
I don't live in your computer.
I'm here now.
I'll do my bit and I'll leave after bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Sunesis,
I saw some of that show. I was doing stuff when it was on and caught parts of it. I think it was THAT show where the priest was talking about how terrible it is to say Jesus was married that got me thinking about whether he could have been.
I wasn't paying much attention when they got to the Merogovian part but I heard a little of it. Thanks for the summary. I'd like to see the whole thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Mo,
How do explain that Jesus and his disciples were CALLED to the wedding?
It would be odd, indeed, for a groom to receive an invitation to attend his own wedding.
Doncha think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It's interesting how "Hebrews" goes to such literary lengths as to solidify that Jesus was a Man.
He was tempted in all points as we are.
Took the full measure of suffering for us.
Might a certain amount of that unfathomable measure also
include the suffering that can be experienced in a marriage?
With kids tossed in for a measure hideously complete.
And maybe a wood-sided mini-van.
If He truly didn't suffer in all things,
can Jesus really relate to married people?
Is He a "Savior" we can identify with?
Or if married to us now, - 'us" being "the Bride" -
He suffers still, -- perhaps even all the more?
:blink:
I don't mean to demean marriage. It's just that in such context,
issues of marriage can pose dramatic challenges which tests
the endurance of love.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Sorry lovematters, didn't mean to be anything but inquisitive.
Some good points Danny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
On the subject of why the word called is used
THe following site outlines the traditional Jewish wedding cerenmony
http://www.ohr.org.il/yhiy/article.php/1087
I have copied this passage
bedekin
After the signing of the ketuvah, which is usually accompanied by some light snacks and some hard liquor for the traditional lechaims (the Jewish salute when drinking, which means, "to life!"), the groom does the bedekin, or "veiling." The groom, together with his father and future father-in-law, is accompanied by musicians and the male guests to the room where the bride is receiving her guests. She sits, like a queen, on a throne-like chair surrounded by her family and friends. The groom, who has not seen her for a week (an eternity for a young couple!), covers her face with her veil. This ceremony is mainly for the legal purpose of the groom identifying the bride before the wedding.
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
I wonder how many grooms took a look and said, "Sorry, wrong girl."
Edited by lovemattersLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.