mary magdalene

[Justice]

Precisely. I'm also trying to show that there is no indication that the wedding at Cana was Christ's own.

I think there is an indication in the text itself, even if you disregard everything we've discussed so far.

Did you follow the story close enough to see that the ruler or governor of the feast (I don't think it's a stretch to say it was the same individual) went to the person who provided the wine to ask why he saved the good wine until the end of the feast?

John 2:

8 And he [Jesus] saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

In fact, I think the text makes the implication that the governor of the feast and the ruler of the feast was the same individual. *If* the servants told the governor of the feast who provided the wine, and I think the best logical conclusion is that they did, then he called the bridegroom, as apparently the one who provided the wine.

We know that Jesus is the one who provided the wine. If those assumptions are not unreasonable or illogical, which I don't believe they are, then the text itself names Jesus as the bridegroom. As I said, the background to the story adds to the evidence (Mary seemingly in charge of the food of the feast, Jesus and his followers being "called" to the wedding feast...etc.)

It really isn't much of a stretch. To say the text does NOT make this implication at all, not even in a small degree, is a stretch in my mind.

The implication is there.

Also, it was Jewish custom for the bridegroom to provide the wine (or that's what my friend told me) making it logical that Mary went to Jesus for the wine to begin with.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Justice

[mikbone]

Just wanted to bring up an issue with the marriage in cana.

It was a civil mariage.

If you want to make an LDS argument that Jesus was married while he was a mortal on earth you would do better to try to convince that he was married while recieving the endowment during the mount of transfiguration. See Matthew 17: 1-9

The idea that he would be married outside of the temple without an endowment is akin to the painting of John the Baptist sprinkling water on Jesus Christ's head on the bank of the River Jordan.

It's nonsense.

Edited April 22, 2010 by mikbone

[Elgama]

Just wanted to bring up an issue with the marriage in cana.

It was a civil mariage.

If you want to make an LDS argument that Jesus was married while he was a mortal on earth you would do better to try to convince that he was married while recieving the endowment during the mount of transfiguration. See Matthew 17: 1-9

The idea that he would be married outside of the temple without an endowment is akin to the painting of John the Baptist sprinkling water on Jesus Christ's head on the bank of the River Jordan.

It's nonsense.

maybe he did both in many parts of the world we do both civil and temple marriages.

[Justice]

I don't think Jewish culture of time had 2 different weddings. Remember, they only had the Aaronic Priesthood, and did not have rights to that ordinance in the temple.

[volgadon]

I think there is an indication in the text itself, even if you disregard everything we've discussed so far.

You've disregarded everything I've pointed out, lets at least be fair.

Did you follow the story close enough to see that the ruler or governor of the feast (I don't think it's a stretch to say it was the same individual) went to the person who provided the wine to ask why he saved the good wine until the end of the feast?

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.

John 2:

8 And he [Jesus] saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew; ) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

In fact, I think the text makes the implication that the governor of the feast and the ruler of the feast was the same individual.

He is.

*If* the servants told the governor of the feast who provided the wine, and I think the best logical conclusion is that they did,

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.

then he called the bridegroom, as apparently the one who provided the wine.

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 that Jesus is the one who provided the wine.

We know. Not all the dramatis personae do.

If those assumptions are not unreasonable or illogical, which I don't believe they are, then the text itself names Jesus as the bridegroom.

They are and it doesn't.

As I said, the background to the story adds to the evidence (Mary seemingly in charge of the food of the feast, Jesus and his followers being "called" to the wedding feast...etc.)

As I've pointed out, Christ and the disciples being called is a strike against it.

It really isn't much of a stretch. To say the text does NOT make this implication at all, not even in a small degree, is a stretch in my mind.

The implication is there.

Only if you read it in.

Also, it was Jewish custom for the bridegroom to provide the wine (or that's what my friend told me) making it logical that Mary went to Jesus for the wine to begin with.

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.

[Justice]

I'll be a little more detailed this time.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

We have servants who were with Jesus and did what he said. They witnessed Jesus turn the water into wine and they knew where the wine came from.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins piece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

The servants filled the waterpots with water. They KNEW what was in the pots.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

The servants drew out the water and gave the water that had been turned into wine to the individual that Jesus told them to give it to.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

This same individual who the servants who were told by Jesus to give the water to did not know where the wine came from. At this point we, the readers, already know the servants knew where the wine came from. According to the story it was these same servants who filled the waterpots with water and drew out wine, and were told by Jesus to give wine to this individual. The text makes a specific parenthetic point that the servants knew where the wine came from: 1) even though we the readers already know they know, and 2) immediately after stating the ruler of the feast did not know where the wine came from.

Again, the implication in the text is that the ruler didn't know, but the servants did know.

A ) the same servants who witnessed Jesus turn the water into wine, and were told by Jesus to bare unto the gorernor of the feast

B ) the same ruler that Jesus instructed those same servants to give to the same individual

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The ruler of the feast, then presumably, would call the same person who he was told by the servants provided the wine and instructed them to give the wine to him.

Like I said, the ONLY assumption you have to make is that the servants who witnessed the water being turned into wine, and who were told by Jesus to give the wine to an individual, told that individual, who the text makes specific mention was curious where the wine came from, asked or was told by the same servants who witnessed the miracle, who they got the wine from and told them to give to him.

I'm telling you, it's NOT much of a stretch if you open your mind and just read the text. The only assumption you have to make is a logical one, and seems to be implied in the text by the placing of the parenthetic comment (but the servants which drew the water knew;), something we already knew and did not need repeated unless there was something more or something else the story was relating. AND, it just happens to be immediately preceded by "and knew not whence it was:" making it pretty obvious that the following statement is addressing that specific comment.

It is obvious to me that the ruler did not know where the wine came from, but the servants knew, because they witnessed it, and he either asked or they volunteered what they had just witnessed.

They had just witnessed a miracle! Don't you think they were dying to tell someone? Especially the ruler of the feast who, more than likely, ASKED them where they got the wine?

It's written all in the text.

[Adomini22]

Justice, I was thinking the same thing. Of course, the GA's are not going to state such a thing in this time period (they already have before), but lets leave it at that. There are many implications on that they were married, in my mind. No concrete proof, though. Maybe Volgadon's jewish people can sit down with my jewish people and we can all drink some water together....... ok, just kidding.

[Traveler]

So can someone explain who mary magdalene is. I know she is the first one that Christ appeared to after his resurrection but I get confused cuz ya hear rumors that she may have been Christs wife. Also i've heard that she was the prostitute brought before Jesus when he said he who has not sinned let him cast the first stone... I'm just not grasping the links and would like an explanation. Thanks

It appears to me that the scriptures are clear on a number of points concerning Mary Magdalene.

1. She was a convert to Jesus Christ and his teachings

2. Once converted she entered into covenants and remained loyal thereafter to those covenants.

3. Is a stunning example of what a convert to Jesus Christ ought to be.

The Traveler

[volgadon]

I'll be a little more detailed this time.

5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

We have servants who were with Jesus and did what he said. They witnessed Jesus turn the water into wine and they knew where the wine came from.

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.

6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins piece.

7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

The servants filled the waterpots with water. They KNEW what was in the pots.

8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

The servants drew out the water and gave the water that had been turned into wine to the individual that Jesus told them to give it to.

9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

This same individual who the servants who were told by Jesus to give the water to did not know where the wine came from. At this point we, the readers, already know the servants knew where the wine came from.

We do, Jesus, Mary and those servants do, but no one else.

According to the story it was these same servants who filled the waterpots with water and drew out wine, and were told by Jesus to give wine to this individual. The text makes a specific parenthetic point that the servants knew where the wine came from: 1) even though we the readers already know they know, and 2) immediately after stating the ruler of the feast did not know where the wine came from.

Again, the implication in the text is that the ruler didn't know, but the servants did know.

And?

A ) the same servants who witnessed Jesus turn the water into wine, and were told by Jesus to bare unto the gorernor of the feast

B ) the same ruler that Jesus instructed those same servants to give to the same individual

10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

The ruler of the feast, then presumably, would call the same person who he was told by the servants provided the wine and instructed them to give the wine to him.

Why would he ask if the host was supposed to provide the wine?

Like I said, the ONLY assumption you have to make is that the servants who witnessed the water being turned into wine, and who were told by Jesus to give the wine to an individual, told that individual, who the text makes specific mention was curious where the wine came from, asked or was told by the same servants who witnessed the miracle, who they got the wine from and told them to give to him.

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.

I'm telling you, it's NOT much of a stretch if you open your mind and just read the text. The only assumption you have to make is a logical one, and seems to be implied in the text by the placing of the parenthetic comment (but the servants which drew the water knew;), something we already knew and did not need repeated unless there was something more or something else the story was relating. AND, it just happens to be immediately preceded by "and knew not whence it was:" making it pretty obvious that the following statement is addressing that specific comment.

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.

It is obvious to me that the ruler did not know where the wine came from, but the servants knew, because they witnessed it, and he either asked or they volunteered what they had just witnessed.

No indications of that in the text.

They had just witnessed a miracle! Don't you think they were dying to tell someone? Especially the ruler of the feast who, more than likely, ASKED them where they got the wine?

It's written all 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.

[Adomini22]

I agree. It is not written in the text explicitly. It is only implicit to those who read between the lines, generally (not saying you dont). Most deep doctrine is that way. There are only hints of it in various places...... give you another example (calling and election made sure). Examples EVERYWHERE (JS history, BoM, OT, NT, etc)

[volgadon]

I agree. It is not written in the text explicitly. It is only implicit to those who read between the lines, generally (not saying you dont). Most deep doctrine is that way. There are only hints of it in various places...... give you another example (calling and election made sure). Examples EVERYWHERE (JS history, BoM, OT, NT, etc)

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.

[Justice]

So, Vol... forget any tradition or law related things for now, and look strictly at the text.

What is it IN THE TEXT that makes you say it was not Jesus' wedding?

Maybe we will have a more meaningful discussion from that perspective.

[Moksha]

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.

So what were the Jewish offices of that day?

[mikbone]

So, Vol... forget any tradition or law related things for now, and look strictly at the text.

What is it IN THE TEXT that makes you say it was not Jesus' wedding?

Maybe we will have a more meaningful discussion from that perspective.

He already provided this information...

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.

These two points are just plain common sense. Neither points concern tradition nor law...

[Justice]

mik, the tradition was that the bridegroom WAS called to the wedding feast. You can see it in the parable of the 10 virgins. But, either case, that IS a tradition that's in question, not the text itself. Either it's tradition that the bridegroom is called to the wedding feast or it's not.

And the servant thing... Mary told them to do what Jesus said. I don't get this one. Mary told the servants what to do, then Jesus told the servants what to do. That makes perfect sense. There's nothing in that part of the text that suggests it wasn't Jesus' wedding. Perhaps if you explained how the servants doing what they are told is evidence it's not Jesus' wedding I can better respond.

Even as such, the term "servant" is up for discussion. Were they slaves? I don't think so. Were they helpers at the wedding? I think so. There are many customs that can be found in play here at this wedding feast. But, I'm interested in his comment about how the text itself offers evidence it was not Jesus' wedding.

Concentrate on the events and main characters at the wedding. How does their interation within the text show it's not His wedding?

[volgadon]

So, Vol... forget any tradition or law related things for now, and look strictly at the text.

What is it IN THE TEXT that makes you say it was not Jesus' wedding?

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!

Maybe we will have a more meaningful discussion from that perspective.

Is the discussion not meaningful because I think you are mistaken and that your assertions don't hold up?

[volgadon]

mik, the tradition was that the bridegroom WAS called to the wedding feast. You can see it in the parable of the 10 virgins.

WHERE in the text does it say that the bridegroom was called to the wedding feast?

But, either case, that IS a tradition that's in question, not the text itself. Either it's tradition that the bridegroom is called to the wedding feast or it's not.

Its not.

Please provide an example of a contemporary or near contemoprary wedding in which the bridegroom is called to the wedding feast.

And the servant thing... Mary told them to do what Jesus said. I don't get this one. Mary told the servants what to do, then Jesus told the servants what to do. That makes perfect sense.

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.

There's nothing in that part of the text that suggests it wasn't Jesus' wedding.

Nothing that suggests it was! Why suddenly would the text switch from mentioning Jesus by name to refering to him as an anonymous bridegroom?

Perhaps if you explained how the servants doing what they are told is evidence it's not Jesus' wedding I can better respond.

It is not their doing what they were told, it is that somebody has to tell them the blooming obvious- to obey their master.

Even as such, the term "servant" is up for discussion. Were they slaves? I don't think so. Were they helpers at the wedding? I think so. There are many customs that can be found in play here at this wedding feast.

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?

But, I'm interested in his comment about how the text itself offers evidence it was not Jesus' wedding.

Try reading my posts.

Concentrate on the events and main characters at the wedding. How does their interation within the text show it's not His wedding?

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.

[volgadon]

So what were the Jewish offices of that day?

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.

Edited April 23, 2010 by volgadon

[volgadon]

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.

[TheAngelPalmoni]

He set the perfect example for us to follow to enter the CEL Kingdom. He was even Baptized because that is required even though he was Holy. (2NE 31) Well we are also told in scripture that in order to enter into the Highest degree of the Cel Kingdom that we need to be married and sealed for time and all eternity. Did he set that example? Well it is not recorded in scripture... I wonder why? We can only ASSUME until the spirit tells us one way or another. Not something you teach in Sunday School.

[Justice]

What, IN THE TEXT, makes you say that the wedding at Cana was Jesus's?

Let me go through it one last time.

Mary: Tells the servants to do as Jesus asks.

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Jesus: Tells the servants to fill the pots with water.

Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water.

Servants: (fill water pots with water)

And they filled them up to the brim.

Jesus: Tells the servants to bare the wine to the governor of the feast.

And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast.

Servants: (fills a cup and delivers it to the ruler of the feast)

And they bare it.

Governor: (Tasted the wine but did not know where it came from)

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was

Servants: (knew where the wine came from because they were told by the person who provided it to deliver it to the governor)

(but the servants which drew the water knew)

OK. Summary at this point:

The same servants who witnessed the water turn into wine were told by Jesus to deliver the wine to the governor of the feast. Those same servants delivered the wine to the governor. The governor did not know where the wine came from.

Here is the only assumption you have to make.

Here is the governor of the feast, who just tasted the wine and is curious about where the wine came from. His later statement says his curiosity is spawned because the wine was better than the wine they have drank up to that point, which was usually not the practice.

So, the servants who brought the wine are right there, what's the best, most logical way for the governor to find out where the wine came from? Ask who brought it.

This added text inserted at this location, which states a previously known fact, suggests that he asked the servants:

(but the servants which drew the water knew)

Now, watch the result very closely.

The governor wanted to know where the wine came from so he could ask them a question.

The text says the governor called the bridegroom.

the governor of the feast called the bridegroom

Notice that the governor is no longer curious about where the wine came from. The text implies he no longer desires to know where it came from. This supports the idea that he asked the servants who knew where the wine came from.

The governor does not ask the bridegroom where the wine came from.

The governor approaches the bridegroom as if he knows the bridegroom is the individual who provided the wine.

Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Now, you may not be willing to assume the governor asked the servants where the wine came from, but you have to see how easy it is based on the text, to assume he did.

I'm still amazed you won't at least admit there's an implication or assumption in the text that the Jesus is the bridegroom. You are welcome to explicitly disagree with the assumption, but to continue to say there's not the slightest leaning toward it in the text is just being difficult, in my opinion.

[Justice]

Having said all that... this is an interesting discussion, and that's it.

I do not think this has to be His wedding to make a difference. Whether or not this was Jesus' wedding doesn't change a thing for me. Whether or not Jesus was married while He lived on earth doesn't change a thing.

The fact is He will be married if He is to be like the Father.

[Justice]

Also, the fact that Jesus appeared first to Mary, even before He appeared to the Father, is telling (or should be). There are other evidences that He was married. I believe He was. However, I realize there is no proof in the text about the wedding at Cana being Jesus'. If there is proof in the text then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Justice]

The wedding was in Cana, not Jesus's town of Nazareth.

John 1: 43 is the last place that mentions a place where Jesus would be.

The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee

So, Jesus was heading to Galilee.

Chapter 2 starts this way, verse 1:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee

Why does a person have to get married in his home town? We know He spent some time in Galilee.

OK, now you address after the wedding:

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.

In fact, the New Testament says very little, if any, about Jesus for many years of His life. To say Jesus was not married because the New Testament does not explicitly say He was is a bad argument. There were many hundreds of years where the text of the New Testament was in the hands of a corrupt church who did not want Christ to be married. It is very easy to presume many of the words of the text were altered, or removed, that may have been more clear on the matter.

The fact that Jesus appeared first to Mary, even before the Father, is a clue to me, and tells me I want to look for more evidence. I see evidence in the text of the story at the wedding of Cana, if you do not then we disagree. That's all it is is a disagreement.

But, you have to admit that with one small assumption, the text can be easily led that way, even if, as you say, it's not explicit.

It's been a fun conversation. I hope it didn't get you too riled up.

[Adomini22]

Justice, I did not think you could explain your position any finer than those details. I am open to the possibility that I (and you) could be wrong, but the text does imply it. The wedding of Cana is not the only thing that implies this though....

I just wanted to say well put. No judgements cast, just plain explanation. Well done.