Movie Overview
New Discoveries
The Chevron
Essential Facts
Theological Considerations
The Tomb
The Experts
Holy Books
Holy Land
Back to Basics
Alternative Theories
Debate & Discussion
Link to Us
Spread the Word
The Press
Buy The BookForumTell a FriendBuy the DVD
Buy the DVDLink to UsNews CoverageBuy The Book
Home » Forum » Mary Magdalene » THE WEDDING OF JESUS TO MARY
Hello, guest
Name: Nate  •  Title: THE WEDDING OF JESUS TO MARY  •  Date posted: 05/22/07 7:04

In order to be able to see the dual-messiah role of Mary Magdalene and Jesus, we need to establish that she and Jesus were indeed married. The OT is clear that two messiahs were to be expected: a kingly and a
priestly Messiah. Mary was the priestly Messiah, born as she was of the tribe of Levi, and therefore a daughter of Aaron. Jesus of course was of the royal line of David. John the Baptist, although also of Priestly
descent, cannot be the second Messiah, for he was executed early on in the ministry of Jesus. It was, therefore, the first wife of Jesus, Mary of Magdala that was the priestly Messiah. Mary Magdalene is "the Tree of Gnosis [Knowledge]" spiritually speaking, and Jesus is the "Tree of Life. [Zoe, Divine Life, the very Life of God, not merely bios, or biological life]." By partaking of the Two Messiahs, we partake of both Gnosis and Divine Life, and in fact are Deified, taken up into the Godhead and made "partakers of the Divine
Nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

All four Gospels refer to Jesus as a Rabbi. The text does not tell us this is merely an honorarium, nor does it give us any reason to think that Jesus was in fact anything other than a Rabbi. It does not tell us
he was a "tekton" (An Artisan, a worker in stone, iron, and wood, usually inaccurately translated "carpenter"), it merely says he is "the son of a tekton." Yet, despite these facts, most people in Christendom have the erroneous impression that Jesus was himself a "poor carpenter" and his status as a Rabbi was merely an honorific, sort of like having an honorary Doctorate today. Not so. All such are mere traditions with
nothing whatsoever to back them up. Period. (If there is an interest in the subject, we can address the false notion that Jesus was of the poor class. He was in fact and Archon [ruler or chief] of his people, of the ruling class, and the Gospels are abundant in evidence of this fact) So let us establish the marital status of Jesus and Mary of Magdala. The training of Jesus to be a Rabbi began when he was a boy, and we see this
training in the account of his successful debating with his elders in the Temple when he was a lad of twelve!

Jesus was a Rabbi. So we are informed. With that matter established we might ask, "Why did an unfounded tradition arise in which Jesus was merely an "honorary" Rabbi but was actually a carpenter?" This tradition arose because the emerging Catholic Church was very anti-woman and to admit that Jesus was a Rabbi was to admit Jesus was a married man.
(Anyone who doubts that the Church Fathers and the Roman Catholic Church were—and are--anti-female need only read their writings to be exposed to enough woman-hating misogyny to last many lifetimes.
Recall too the Catholic church's 300+ year war on feminists they called "witches" and burned as much as a couple million women at the stake. Recall also the Catholic Church's 2,000 year refusal to grant either the deaconate or the priesthood to women)

The historical fact is that a Rabbi was required to be married not simply expected to be married. Phone your local Rabbi and ask. I did. I have also done a good bit of reading on the subject after being properly
directed by a local Rabbi. So, to admit Jesus was an actual Rabbi is to admit he was married. Hence the groundless claim that when the Gospels refer to Jesus as a Rabbi it's meant only as an honorary title. All this grows out of an anti-female political agenda that sought to put women "in their place." This is also the motive for the false portrayal of Mary as a prostitute. (At least the Catholic Church finally admitted it lied and has dropped that blasphemous accusation)

Despite everything, the four "canonical" Gospels still contain clues that Jesus was married. They do not come right out and say that Jesus was married, but neither do they come right out and say Jesus was not
married. This is partly due to the fact that the church became anti-woman very early on as the herds of literalists quickly outnumbered Gnostics and the four gospels were tampered with. It's also partly due
to the fact that the Gospel writers assumed we would already know Jesus was married because he was a Rabbi. It's a given. It was assumed the readers would know this fact as a matter of course. The Jewish people of the time equated deliberate celibacy with murder, the murder of the infants they were denying birth to. So, if Jesus were an unmarried man, especially since he was a Rabbi, his celibacy would have made him a pariah. No one would have sought him out or came to listen to him. Husbands would have forbidden their wives to listen to him, and would
have refused to listen to him themselves. In fact, in the context of first century Judaism, if Jesus were celibate it would have "raised such a stink" that some record of it would have been written down. We are told Jesus was accused of being "a drunkard and a friend of harlots and sinners." His being celibate would have been a vastly greater faux pas, yet we hear nothing of it. That is highly significant. It very strongly suggests Jesus was not celibate; hence no uproar over it was caused. It strongly suggests Jesus was married, just as a Rabbi was expected to be.

The Gospel of John gives us the details of at least one of the weddings of Jesus. (Remember, first century Jews practiced polygamy just as they had for thousands of years) The wedding I refer to is of course the wedding in Cana of Galilee. One of the peculiarities of this account is the apparent absence of a Bridegroom; that is, if you do not realize the
Bridegroom in the story is right out in the open, namely, Jesus. Why would an account of a wedding not feature the Bridegroom, but prominently feature Jesus, if Jesus is not in fact the Bridegroom?
Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that we are not even given the name of the Bridegroom, unless it is Jesus that is the Bridegroom? (Recall too that Jesus referred to himself as the Bridegroom in at least one of his

Secondly, Miriam the mother of Jesus is present at the wedding. She is not only present, but also she is seen ordering the servants about, and the servants come to her to inform her the wine has run out. In a traditional Jewish wedding of the period, the parents of the Bridegroom assumed these duties, mainly the mother. The servants reported the problem to Miriam, and she told them what to do! She is clearly in charge. She behaves very much as the hostess of a wedding was expected to act! She even tells Jesus, the Bridegroom, what to do! She is,therefore, the mother of the Bridegroom. The Bridegroom is Jesus, for it
was the responsibility of a Bridegroom and his mother to see to such things at his wedding.

Which brings me to another point. If Jesus and Miriam were merely guests, and not Bridegroom and hostess, they would not be concerning themselves with such things as the supply of wine. It simply would not be their place, unless they were in fact Bridegroom and hostess. A final piece of evidence that this is the wedding of Jesus is to be found in the fact that, immediately after Jesus turned water into wine
(it was not someone else who turned the water into wine), we are told that the "governor" [literally, "Archon" or chief, ruler] of the wedding, equivalent to a modern day master of ceremonies, "called the Bridegroom and said unto him [the Bridegroom]: 'Every man is placing the ideal wine first, and whenever they have had enough to drink, then he sets forth the inferior wine. Yet you [the Bridegroom] have held back
the ideal wine until now!" Lets put on our thinking caps: It was Jesus who changed the water into wine. The "master of ceremonies" said to the
Bridegroom: "you have kept back the ideal wine until now!"

Jesus = the Bridegroom who supplied the ideal wine! It very plain, easy to see, and logical, unless one is blinded by a lifetime of misogynist indoctrination that makes one think women and marriage and sex are
"dirty" and "defiled" and beneath the Messiah!

Mary Magdalene was one of the wives of Jesus, the kingly Messiah. As his wife, she completes the "dynamic duo" of two Messiahs, one Priestly and
one Kingly.

The stage has been set. Mary of Magdala was indeed the "chalice" that held the "Sang Royal" the Royal Blood, the sacred seed of Jesus the Kingly Messiah! Every bit as much as Jesus, she was responsible for
initiating the Chosen into the Mysteries of the Kingdom, instructing them, guiding them, and bringing them fully into "the Kingdom of Heaven." 
Your Answer:
  <<< Login required    |

Jesus of Nazareth Mary Magdalene: Mariamne Early Christianity
Copyright 2024© Jesusfamilytomb.com.
All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions | Contact Us

Design and Marketing by TalMor Media

Link To Us Spread The Word Debate and Discussion Buy DVD