volgadon

Eh? Let me cut through your snark. We don't really know what the offices of the Jews outside the temple were or when we do have a title just what that position was. Also, there were different offices and titles in Israel and the diaspora and different ones at different periods. There was also no governing body that regulated all the affairs of all the communities. Each community did more or less as they pleased. Check out that book I mentioned, it can be previewed on google books.

In the late '60s, an archaeological expedition to Deir Alla in Jordan discovered an inscription on a wall from the 8th century BC, claiming to be a prophecy of Balaam's. Here is Andre Lemaire's reconstruction of Combination I. 1. Inscription of [ba]laam [son of Beo]r, the man who was a seer of the gods. Lo, the gods came to him at night and [spoke to] him 2. According to these wor[ds], and they said to [balaa]m, son of Beor thus: “There has appeared the last flame, a fire of chastisement has appeared!” 3. And Balaam arose the next day [ … several?] days [ … ] and he cou[ld not eat] and he wept 4. Intensely and his people came to him and s[aid] to Balaam, son of Beor: “Why do you fast and why do you weep?” and he 5. Said to them: “Sit down! I shall show you how gre[at is the calamity!] and come, see the deeds of the gods! The gods have gathered 6. And the Mighties [shaddayinb] have fixed a date, and they said to Sha[ma]sh [/the sun]: ‘Sew, shut the skies with your cloud! there, let there be darkness and no shi- 7. ning … ? … , for you will provoke terror [by a clo]ud of darkness, and do not make noise forever but [in its place?] the swift, 8. The bat, the eagle and the peli[can,] the vultures, the ostrich and the s[tork and] the young falcons, and the owl, the chicks of the heron, the dove, the bird of prey, 9. The pigeon and the sparrow, [every bird of the s]kies, and [on the earth] down, in the place where the [shepherd’s] crook was leading the ewes, hares eat 10. [Alto]gether free[ly … ]

The coastal route was heavily garrisoned by the Egyptians.

I didn't post this last night as Greek is not my strong point and I needed to verify my reading, but the Greek for the phrase in John 2:4 translated as 'what have I to do with thee' is literally 'what to me and to you', IE what concern of ours is this. Combined with verses 1 and 2 which indicate that Mary was also invited, what we have here is another strong indication that this was not Christ's own marriage feast.

Specifically Jewish ones? Apart from priests and Levites who conducted the temple services we don't really know. A good breakdown of the issue is in Lee I Levine's The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years.

WHERE in the text does it say that the bridegroom was called to the wedding feast? Its not. Please provide an example of a contemporary or near contemoprary wedding in which the bridegroom is called to the wedding feast. No it does not make perfect sense. Why would a third party have to instruct the servants to obey their master? Mary's instruction only makes sense if Christ was not their master. Nothing that suggests it was! Why suddenly would the text switch from mentioning Jesus by name to refering to him as an anonymous bridegroom? It is not their doing what they were told, it is that somebody has to tell them the blooming obvious- to obey their master. And none of them point towards Jesus as the bridegroom. Even were the servants only temporary, why would they need to be specially instructed to obey the boss? Try reading my posts. The wedding was in Cana, not Jesus's town of Nazareth. Jesus and his disciples are called to the wedding. Why would the host call himself, indeed, how would the host do so? The text notes that Mary was there, why do so if she was the mother of the bridegroom, why state the obvious? The next verses states that christ and his disciples were also called, connecting them with Mary. She tells Christ that they have no wine, not that we have no wine. Christ's response is an odd one for a bridegroom informed that he has no wine with which to serve his own guests and drink himself. His interaction with the servants is confined to two instructions- to fill the jars with water and to draw from the water then bring it to the master of ceremonies. They say absolutely nothing in the text. The master is suprised at the quality of wine. He chides the anonymous bridegroom for serving the good stuff when people couldn't appreciate it. No indication that he is speaking to Jesus or that he knows of any miracle. Next thing that Christ, his mother and disciples do is go to Capernaum. No mention of him as bridegroom or of any involvement in the wedding beyond being a guest and miraculously producing wine. In other words, the text does not indicate that this was Christ's very own wedding. When you factor in cultural and historical arguments the this-was-Christ's-very-own-wedding crowd have no leg to stand on.

Let me turn that question around. What, IN THE TEXT, makes you say that the wedding at Cana was Jesus's? The text itself does not say that this is Jesus's wedding. The default position is that it is not his, you are the one that needs to show why we shouldn't take the text's word for it. I've already mentioned things in the text that make me say that this wasn't Christ's wedding, in fact I've mentioned them numerous times. See mikbone's latest post. That being said, I've overlooked another indicator, one that hammers the final nail into your argument's coffin. The wedding was at Cana, not Nazareth. Jesus was from Nazareth. If this is not enough, he heads over to Capernaum, doesn't stay with his wife! Is the discussion not meaningful because I think you are mistaken and that your assertions don't hold up?

I make a point of reading between the lines. The idea that the wedding at Cana was Christ's own is not implicit, not by reading between the lines, not by examining the cultural background either. OTOH one can read whatever one likes into things, but this doesn't necessarily make them implicit in the text.

Yet you keep ignoring the fact that servants don't have to be specifically instructed to obey their master. An utterly superfluous statement isn't it, on Mary's part. We do, Jesus, Mary and those servants do, but no one else. And? Why would he ask if the host was supposed to provide the wine? It is an unwarranted assumption. The text does not state that the master was at all curious where the wine came from, but was surprised by its quality. The parenthetic comment serves a rhetorical purpose, it brings to the fore one of the ideological messages of the book. The blind man Jesus restored sight to is another example. No indications of that in the text. Why is it more than likely that the master would ask where they got the wine, he didn't realise that they had run out, Mary wasn't exactly going to anounce to all and sundry, its a disgrace. What surprised the master was not that the wine had appeared by miraculous means, but rather its quality. Don't you think that if the servants had told him of the miracle then he would have rushed to discuss that rather than say why have you hid the good stuff until now? Again, I hold, it is not written in the text unless one writes it in.

You've disregarded everything I've pointed out, lets at least be fair. No, must have completely missed a third of the story. The text does not say that the master of the party went to the individual who provided the wine. It says that he called the bridegroom over. He is. Utterly no indication that they did. In fact, there is a stark contrast between the servants who know of the miracle and its source, and the 'ruler' who doesn't. What surprises the ruler is not that there is wine, but rather the quality of it. It is the bridegroom's house and the bridegroom's resources they are using. The text does not indicate that the master knew anything was amiss. We know. Not all the dramatis personae do. They are and it doesn't. As I've pointed out, Christ and the disciples being called is a strike against it. Only if you read it in. The bridegroom was supposed to provide everything. Mary was in charge of the preparations and the logistics. There was wine to begin with. They ran out of wine. There was none to be had anymore. She asked her son, who she knew had power from God, to intervene and help. Just because the bridegroom was supposed to provide the food and wine doesn't make jesus the bridgeroom. He stepped int to help when help was needed.

Thanks. There is no scriptural evidence either way. In fact, my personal opinion is that he was married. Precisely. I'm also trying to show that there is no indication that the wedding at Cana was Christ's own. Even if he was, knowing to whom he was married is as impossible of solution as the identity of Beethoven's secret love.

A clear anachronism. The office of rabbi as you describe it simply did not exist in Christ's day, and even during the Jamniah days it was different. Also the rabbis did not gain control of the syngagogue until the early medieval period. Christ was not a rabbi. Did not even a single one of those 20 or so websites provide a source? of course there are many ways to find answers, but when it comes to history they need to be connected to the primary sources.

And not a single reference to back up assertions like these. I could myself find dozens of websites asserting that 'Jewish customs of Jesus' day required married Rabbis' none of which provide the sources for such claims. Nevermind that rabbis as such did not exist in Jesus's day. there were sages, yes, but they were not termed rabbi (I mean not uniquely, rabbi was the equivalent of today's usage of sir) nor did they have any official status like later rabbis did. Did any of them provide references to said ancient Jewish tradition or at least to secondary literature? I'm well aware of that. The history of my people and my land is of deep interest to me. Are you sure you remember the title correctly, I tried googling it but with no success.

ah yes, it must be hilarious that I want to see for myself the sources that Justice is basing his assertions on. Silly me. I've read those. Has nothing to do with what I was asking Justice for. Not so. You are probably thinking of a statement attributed to r. Judah b. Temah (a sage who lived after the destruction of Herod's temple), which can be found in Pirkei Avot. This is one man's opinion on the stages a man's life should take, not a set law. Also note that Christ was far older than the recommended age for marriage! I have shared the example of r. ben Azai, who was not married. Because relatives assisted with the wedding feast? These were big undertakings, even distant relations helped. I've noted difficulties, such as Jesus being invited to his own feast, or the servants being instructed to obey him. When one looks at the whole pericope it is far from being a given (or, indeed, even probable) that it was his own wedding. What does that have to do with the wedding at Cana?

Who is the author, when was it written, and what references do they give? Chapter and verse, please. That was in the Nazareth synagogue, not the temple. The unmarried ben Azai preached in the synagogue. Also, most anyone could get up and read a portion of scripture (if they were literate), or paraphrase it into Aramaic. Reference? The ten virgins wre neither bride nor groom. Also, not merely close relatives came to meet and escort bride and groom, the whole village did, and any randomn people as well. Have you never heard of hachnasat kalah? An example is found in chapter 4 of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, pg. 32 of the Goldin translation. Th parable of the 10 virgins is certainly no case of bridgeroom being invited to his own party! The feast was part of the wedding. At its conclusion the pair would consumate the marriage in the bridgeroom's home. That was the wedding in Christ's day. Why is Christ invited to the wedding instead of picking up the bride and escorting her to his home for the feast? The more one studies those things the weaker the tie. Trust me, I have. I've also been to dozens of Jewish weddings from all sorts of different communities, as well as Palestinian ones. I can point you in the direction of some excellent sources.

And if he wants to include us in the family business, then I say let him.

New one on me. Perhpas you are thinking of the statement in the Mishnah that the high priest who would be officiating in the temple on the Day of Atonement should have another woman on standby in case his wife should die. This would mean that he would be unable to officiate due to burying his wife, contact with the dead or a grave would render him unclean. This is hardly a case of people being forbidden to teach in the outer courts of the temple if they were unmarried. Whether or not Christ was married, the wedding at Cana was not his own. The groom is not invited to his own wedding, nor do the servants have to be instructed to heed him. There are other indicators, but these two are the strongest.

Not true. It was the norm, but not prerequisite to be married at a certain age. In fact, one of the greatest Jewish preachers of the early 2nd century AD was a bachelor.

There is a wonderful Russian story about the princess and the dwarf. She falls in love with him because of his talent in playing musical instruments, in singing, his philosophical thoughts, until for her beauty was three feet high with a hunched back.

Everything about Christ's marital status is speculation.

Ah yes, Majadele. Why don't we look into that a little deeper, shall we? The uproar was over his appointment as minister of culture, science and sports. Of course, they have no legitimate grounds for objecting, after all, it is not as if Majadele refused to sing the national anthem, waged war on Jewish cultural institutions, slighted events he was invited to, vocally supported giving back parts of Israel to Syria, oh, wait, he did...

Not strictly true. see D&C 63:11. In gods, for sure, but not Israel's God. See Exodus 5:2.

I know very well thatt you mean Israel Beiteinu and not Likud, but they are far from making the apartheid leaders look liberal.

My dad was branch president for 14 years.

Oh please, the parties that make up our government are not that far right. Ridiculous exaggeration. For the record, I'm a moderate socialist, not a right-winger.