Skip to main content

View Diary: What Happened When a Commited Same-Sex Couple Visited a Bigoted Church (147 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The only reason Jesus and his Mum were in charge (8+ / 0-)

    of snacks at the wedding in Canaan was that it was HIS wedding.  But hey - being married doesn't mean you're straight at all, just married.

    And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

    by Mortifyd on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 10:24:08 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  33 is pretty over the hill (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, a gilas girl

      for a Jewish man, circa ~30 c.e. Tradition and practice was teenage marriage, adulthood arrived with puberty. Obviously being "in charge of snacks and wine" at a wedding denotes close - and likely lineal - relation to bride or groom.

      Likely a son/daughter or niece/nephew from one of the siblings. Mary (grandma) would certainly worry about what people would say if they ran out of wine, but indications are that Jesus was the only one of her offspring who knew how to turn water into wine. Even if it wasn't really his responsibility to provide, he'd have been the one asked... §;o)

      •  doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a gilas girl

        IF he had been married previously it would have been mentioned, as no one at the time had any kind of agenda to have him unmarried - culturally it was expected as you point out.  

        That being said - since there is no mention of a wedding previously, or wife, or children - it being his is NOT farfetched culturally at all. Finally.  Got him married.  

        You can't just take him out of the context of the culture he lived in - and not everyone was married in their teens, even then.  Some of the greatest sages married "late" in life, being so devoted to Torah they couldn't be bothered previously.  So in that context it boosts the idea he was a great scholar rather than an am haaretz.

        And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

        by Mortifyd on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:50:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, the gospels (0+ / 0-)

          say nothing at all about Jesus' life between the age of 12 and 32/33. Surely you don't believe that means he lost twenty years altogether and went straight from age 12 to age 33, do you?

          •  you do know I'm Jewish, right? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So what the gospels say are pretty much not of any real interest to me - aside from the fact they are pretty invested in making Jews and Jewish culture look like shit. And get things wrong as well.

            but hey, what do actual Jews know about Jewish culture, right?  It's not like we have records or the Talmud which was written about they same time or anything...

            And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

            by Mortifyd on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:44:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Split (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Especially considering the biblical evidence (forgetting real evidence please) that shows Jesus obeying the Jewish Law, when Paul's mission on this earth was to create a new Roman religion, with a supposed new covenant, that uses the historical texts to add authenticity to the belief system – at the same time removing this new faith from any tie to the old, Judaism. Christians even had the gall to blame the Jews for all time because they killed the messiah!

              I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center. Kurt Vonnegut

              by klimtone on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:57:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What in the world difference (0+ / 0-)

              would that make to your assertion that it must have been Jesus' own wedding - at the ripe old age of 33 - when he turned the water into wine?

              I merely stated that while it was likely a family wedding, it wouldn't necessarily have been his own. If he and siblings had married young as was customary (Mary was, what? 14 when Jesus was born?), their eldest child/ren would have been of age when Jesus was ~33. Thus he very well could have had hosting duties at such an occasion.

              You then said that "it would have been mentioned" if Jesus had previously married. I pointed out that the Christian gospels (you know, the stories of his miraculous birth and later ministry) mentioned nothing at all between the age of 12 and 32/33 (age of ministry). So not having mention of marriage young or old means precisely zip to the question of whose wedding was held at Cana (and IS mentioned). You being Jewish is entirely irrelevant to that.

              Now, if you do have Jewish records establishing whose wedding it was, I'm not the only one who would be very interested in knowing about them and what, exactly, they establish. But don't act all offended because I pointed out that there's a ~20-year hole in the Christian records.

              •  IF he was moshiach, which is the claim (0+ / 0-)

                of Christianity - yes? Then his whole family - spouse, children, etc would have been important and named. But no, you get his Mum and his brothers and his "step dad" who was considerably older than his Mum according to your stories, yet he couldn't possibly have been too busy learning Torah to get married young, being mochiach and all.  As the supposed heir to the throne of Dovid HaMelech - we actually DO keep records of that sort of thing and the women do matter.

                We know who Dovid HaMelech was married to.  We know who Sholomo HaMelech was married to..  We know who the Patriarchs were married to - we know who Moshe was married to and the name of his son he waited to give a bris to - so yeah, those names would have appeared in the context of a Jewish man who was of an important lineage and having an important place in Jewish life and religion.  Hell, we know the names of wives, some children (male and female) of many of the writers of the Talmud and even the names of some of their slaves - but there's bupkis on the family of the man proclaimed by Christians as moshiach in Christian records, supposedly written by Jews?  Because remember, in the beginning it was supposed to be Jews who followed him, not pagans or Romans - Jews.  Who have a long standing culture and literacy and like to write a LOT about people who have an impact on the culture and tradition.

                So it doesn't make any sense that it was some random family member according to the claims made about the man. What family members?  Mum didn't know he was going to make water into wine, she just wanted it fixed.  His brothers weddings would not be his problem - she didn't say - hey make a miracle already, she said we're out of wine. He apparently had no sisters - and without siblings marrying prior to him - no nieces or nephews.  Cousins? definitely not his problem.

                So given the CULTURAL context of whose responsibility it would be at a wedding in that region and time period - and we certainly DO have lots and lots of records of the cultural customs and responsibilities of the day - as I said, the Talmud was being written at the time - your insistence that it could not have been his wedding makes no sense.  So my being Jewish leads me to think based on my own culture - the one I share with him, as we're both Jews - that it was his wedding.  So Jewish - very very relevant.

                I'm not "offended" except in the insistence that the gospels are somehow 1 - historical and 2 - accurate in their portrayal of Jewish culture and law - because they clearly aren't - providing you know anything about Jewish culture and law.  And it intrigues me that Christians often claim to know so much about Judaism - and get so much wrong, because their source material - the gospels - have a vested interest in making Jews and Jewish culture look like shit.

                And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                by Mortifyd on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:58:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Christianity - in the thousand year (0+ / 0-)

                  reign of Catholicism - maintained steadfastly that Mary remained a virgin all her life and never had any other children. Mentions of the brothers was waived away as how believers talk to each other, not that they're actually related. Protestants of most varieties accept that Jesus had brothers. Almost all from both wings would reject the idea that he was ever married. Several liberal denominations and some obscure corners shrug and admit it's possible, and among those you'll fine the spiritual descendants of once-hated heretics: Those who don't subscribe to the deific incarnation angle (non-trinitarians).

                  How old Joseph may have been is and has long been an unanswered question. Portraying him as a middle-aged man is no different from portraying Jesus as a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryan. Pure cultural bias, neither here nor there historically.

                  There's quite a lot of apocrypha out there that didn't make the canon. There's books in the Catholic canon that aren't in the Protestant canon. There's also some contemporary Gnostic pseudography of questionable pertinence, some purported to supply stories from the "missing years." Orthodox and mainline denominations accept none of it, but that doesn't mean nobody ever accepted it.

                  Everybody knows Jews are not Christians and Christians are not Jews. I don't recall that such claims were made in this thread. As for what Christians believe, that's literally all over the map. Pretty much always has been apart from the periods when 'The Church' (Catholicism) was busy burning heretics at the stake for believing unsanctioned things. They lost that power awhile back, thank goodness.

                  Any decent academic overview of the culture of Palestine [and environs] during the first century common era makes it clear that teenage marriage/ parenthood was not considered a social problem. There no doubt were people who studied too hard to bother. And people who wandered too far to bother. And people who simply had no interest in 'expected' social practices. That all seems quite uncontroversial.

                  I simply mentioned that if he was in a host role (that is not specified), he was old enough to be the parent. As alternative to being groom. John's narrative doesn't identify whose wedding it was. Nobody else's narrative includes the wedding at Cana at all. The combined narrative goes from speaking with the elders in the Temple courtyard [Luke] to the wedding in Cana [John]. A 20 year hole. Matthew and Mark have a bigger biographical hole. Jesus' childhood and young adulthood must not have seemed that important to the architects of the religion.

                  •  A Jewish woman being a virgin after a chuppah? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Um -  no.  They get merrily taken to a tent/room by the wedding party where they have sex as part of the celebration. With someone guarding the door. Food and the actual celebration of the couple - that comes after the sex.  Cultural context matters.

                    As does the claim of moshiach.  The king must have heirs. And a spouse to bear them.  You don't leave out details like that.

                    It's details like that - the things that are SO not Jewish, so outside the way Jews do things and write about them - that's why there are still Jews.  It doesn't make any sense to us - and that's just the social aspects, I won't go into the actual theology which is whole universes apart.  Jews are definitely NOT Christians - any Jew who believes G-d walked around in a people suit is an idolator under Jewish law. Period.  And Christians are not Jews - you must have belief in order to be a Christian in something that is outside Jewish thought or culture.

                    One of my friends recently was at a Shabbos dinner where the question arose - which parent does Christianity come through?  How one is a Jew is not a matter of belief but of parentage - another huge difference between us.

                    So we can agree - the gospels have liturgical importance to Christians, but they aren't history or "factual" in the way we think of facts today.  Meaningful - you bet.  Important to the concepts of Christian thought and faith - absolutely.  A primer on Jewish life under the Romans? Not so much.  And perhaps part of the reason the Jewishness of the supposed King of the Jews is downplayed is because the architects of the religion weren't Jews at all - they were pagans.  Using a completely different set of rules to create a new faith, not a continuation of another.  

                    It's interesting that Koine Greek is the scholarship language of the gospels and not Latin, don't you think?  Particularly given that the Romans were the power of the day, the Hasmoneans long gone.

                    Different things are emphasised, the culture and reality of Jewish life under the Romans is crudely and poorly described - because the point is to make something else using a different set of concepts.

                    Christianity is NOT a completion of the Law, or a fulfillment of Judaism - but a completely different thing - as I've said all along.  I have a long standing distaste for Christians claiming they understand Judaism for these very reasons.  

                    I don't have a problem with people being Christians.  I DO have a problem with Christians using the gospels to explain how their beliefs trump ours and ignorantly proclaim they know all about Judaism - using the gospels as their text of Jewish life and culture.

                    Perhaps it's time for Christians to cut the apron strings among themselves and quit lying about Jews, Judaism and the origins of their faith - and blaming us for their inability to read with context and justify their hatred - such as using Leviticus to condemn people.  

                    The gospels are plenty old enough now to be venerated as stand alone texts of belief - and let go of the illusion they are history.  That would be good - it might even lessen institutional antisemitism.  We'd be all for that.

                    After all, we remind ourselves every year that Abraham's father Terach was an idol maker from Ur-Kasdim.  Our origins were pagan too - nothing to be ashamed of at all.

                    But stop talking about us as if we don't exist except in the context of your beliefs - because we are still here, and we make our own context and our own history - despite Christian attempts to drive us into extinction and irrelevance by reframing us as G-d killers.

                    And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                    by Mortifyd on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 11:36:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've long considered Christianity (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      to be "Paganism Lite." I think it's clear the religion was crafted specifically to appeal to the dominant beliefs of the cultural overlords of the era. The better to usurp them with, a means (and will) to power. Which was so abused for so long that by the time Europeans woke up to just how corrupt it had become, a thousand years had come and gone in distance from what might (or might not) have been real in the mission and ministry of the principal.

                      It is probably in our nature to corrupt everything we touch - even our own hearts and minds. Individuals may find grace in their lives, maybe inspire others to seek it. But it's always struck me odd that there's a whole Big Religion out there that convinces people their ticket to heaven is dependent upon the number of scalps - er, souls - they've collected on their belt. Nobody can 'save' anybody else's soul. Hell, most can't even manage to 'save' their own.

                      I hope that if we survive long enough to evolve beyond the dangerous animals we are now, those who come next will be less burdened by our over-wired brains' inherent confusion between good and evil. But admit our suicidal tendencies make it unlikely that we'll survive that long. [Shrug]

                      •  I might actually argue "Lite" lol but I get it (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        The concept of another being able to forgive your sins? SO not Jewish. lol  You are responsible for yourself and how well or poorly you manage to keep the Law - which is for the benefit of humans, not G-d - to help us aspire to be less shitty people, because people suck.  Not because of "original sin" - another non-Jewish concept - but because we are tribal chimpanzees in shoes, tend to be violent and take the easiest route to comfort at the expense of others not of our tribe.

                        I think we are capable of not killing ourselves - provided the slide away from science is halted.  We need to start sending humans out of our atmosphere at least - and out of our solar system definitely if we are to survive as a species. We're not doing so hot here at home - and there will be a massive die off as a result of our poor stewardship.  I don't believe in an interventionist deity that will fix it for us.  I think Sagan was right - there is a point sentient species must cross - to be able to live long enough to get off the rock and continue, or go extinct.  We're right at that point and it could go either way.

                        And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                        by Mortifyd on Wed May 01, 2013 at 03:28:12 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sigh. I think that if we weren't alone (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          in our conceivably accessible corner of the universe, we'd probably know that by now. Unless all other possibly "intelligent" forms of life haven't gotten as far as us yet. In which case, God have mercy on them when we do discover them. If we can't exploit them for profit, we'll extinct-ify them. If we foul our own nest to extinction, we've certainly no business exporting it to anyplace else where life might have a chance in hell.

                          You are right that our stewardship of this planet has been so lousy that we may yet succeed in making most forms of life on this planet extinct. Lord knows we're proud of threatening each other and ourselves with that very thing. Sometimes I think it's just a diversion from all the pollution profiteering being done.

                          None of us lives forever. The profit motive is bigger than any single one of us. I find that very scary. Because it's so easy to distract from... §;o)

                          •  if there are others in our neighbourhood (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I feel sorry for them - we are a violent species and will be feared or destroyed.  I think we have the right to try to continue our existence - not at the cost of extermination of other sentients - but we know how that will go, I agree completely - if we can't exploit them we'll kill them.  Hell, look what we do to the other intelligent mammals (great apes, cetaceans) on our home planet.  We should be confined to other rocks with nothing else on them.

                            Chimps in shoes who make tools of death as toys - aren't we just the friendliest species in the galaxy. sigh  We're the sharpest tools in our shed, but total dicks.  And we have developed so quickly in the last couple centuries that we have forgotten (those of us in the "first world" at any rate) that we are not immune to our own destructive power.  It might very well be good for us to have to work hard again to survive on the moon or Mars for a while before venturing out of our solar system, knock us down a couple of pegs.

                            At least in those places we can't hurt anyone else.

                            And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

                            by Mortifyd on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:51:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

      ... the story says they were "invited," and Mary told Jesus, "They ran out of wine." The way it's phrased it sounds like they were just wedding guests lending a helping hand.

      261.A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience. -Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

      by MaikeH on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 11:57:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site