# A Good Friday Wedding!!!???



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I happened to overhear a co-worker yesterday evening talking about his upcoming wedding...which is taking place tomorrow night, in other words, on Good Friday!

I will admit I am not nearly so zealous and convinced a Christian as I once was, but this still strikes me as being in the worst bad taste imaginable! I assume from his name and general demeanor that the young man in question comes from a Christian background and is at least a "cultural Christian." I will say that, although I don't know the chap well, he seems like a pleasant and personable fellow. 

Even if he is indifferent to the impropriety of holding his wedding on the somber day when Christendom commemorates the death of Jesus, I should think that he would be putting many of his guests, at least some of whom must have Christian allegiances, on the spot. He mentioned having 150 guests. 

Or maybe Southern California has become so heathen that nobody will notice or care? (For example, I may be compelled to perform jury duty on Good Friday, alas.)

Your thoughts, gentlemen?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I happened to overhear a co-worker yesterday evening talking about his upcoming wedding...which is taking place tomorrow night, in other words, on Good Friday!
> 
> I will admit I am not nearly so zealous and convinced a Christian as I once was, but this still strikes me as being in the worst bad taste imaginable! I assume from his name and general demeanor that the young man in question comes from a Christian background and is at least a "cultural Christian." I will say that, although I don't know the chap well, he seems like a pleasant and personable fellow.
> 
> ...


He must not be having a church service. I doubt many churches would allow a wedding to be held on Good Friday.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> He must not be having a church service. I doubt many churches would allow a wedding to be held on Good Friday.


No, it is not a church service.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Maybe he (and no one in his family) realizes the date.

Or maybe they just don't care. I suppose I'm glad it's their problem, not mine, and I'm also glad I didn't have to turn down the invitation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

They probably did schedule it without realizing the signifigance of the date. I wonder if they were able to obtain cheaper than normal hall rental rates. A pair of my good friends were married on a Friday 13th and they were able to book everything at 1/2 price as no one wanted to get married on that date!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Your thoughts, gentlemen?


If Jesus was standing next to you, what do you think his response would be? I believe he'd remind you of why he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross, and criticize you for putting worship of him ahead of a ceremony before God.

He gave his life as ransom for man's sin, not to force man to reschedule his marriage ceremonies.

"No messenger outranks the one who sent him."

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but the Father alone."

Etc.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> (For example, I may be compelled to perform jury duty on Good Friday, alas.)


Perhaps make a point that it's Good Friday and you support cruxifiction?


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

As long as they plan to divorce on Easter it's OK.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

As you might guess, I don't have any problem with it, but it does seem a bit odd. I would suspect that many people would find it in bad taste. Is the officiant going to be a priest, minister, or some such? You would think that whoever it is would point out the unusual scheduling, even assuming they were willing to do it.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Bad taste...


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> If Jesus was standing next to you, what do you think his response would be? I believe he'd remind you of why he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross, and criticize you for putting worship of him ahead of a ceremony before God.
> 
> He gave his life as ransom for man's sin, not to force man to reschedule his marriage ceremonies.
> 
> ...


I was going to post, and had written, someting sarcastic to this - but it's so patently silly, I just thought it best to let it stand on it's own.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I was going to post, and had written, someting sarcastic to this - but it's so patently silly, I just thought it best to let it stand on it's own.


Pity. I would have preferred an actual response intead of puerile shadow boxing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This morning a gesticulating weatherperson was trying to explain this odd marine layer of gloom and last night's thunder. I admit I was more intriqued by her huge necklace of Apache tears somehow double looped over one breast. Her subtle attempts to free herself from this bit of BDSM while standing in front of Ventura ( why do they always stand right in front of where YOU live?) were most entertaining. I must wonder, if the thunder and lightning resume and all goes dark, will they know why?


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

JRR said:


> Bad taste...


Exactly. Bad taste. Not an offense against God, but bad taste.
Also somewhat inconsiderate. I'm sure, no matter the beliefs of thses people, some family and friends will now be put in the awkward position of having to decline the opportunity to participate in this important event, or do violence to their own beliefs.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Pity. I would have preferred an actual response intead of puerile shadow boxing.


I doubt it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If Jesus was standing next to you, what do you think his response would be? I believe he'd remind you of why he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross, and *criticize you for putting worship of him ahead of a ceremony before God.*
> 
> He gave his life as ransom for man's sin, not to force man to reschedule his marriage ceremonies.
> 
> ...


I don't think that having a wedding on Good Friday is wrong, but it is inconsiderate. Many people, myself included, attend services during Holy Week. Also, since most churches have services today (my church has three) their pastors would already be very busy.

As to your last point, I guess you have never heard of the Triune God. The worship of Jesus _is_ the worship of God.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wagers that fish will be the entree at this wedding?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> As to your last point, I guess you have never heard of the Triune God. The worship of Jesus _is_ the worship of God.


In your opinion. My opinion is, Trinitarianism was a primary and fundamental corruption of the faith by the First Nicean Council in 325AD. It essentially gutted Catholicism and converted it from the religion _of_ Jesus to a religion _about_ him. He was planted firmly on a pedestal and from that point, no one else was allowed to join him.

If you need a more explicit explanation, Jesus himself said it best:

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve."


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> In your opinion. My opinion is, Trinitarianism was a primary and fundamental corruption of the faith by the First Nicean Council in 325AD. It essentially gutted Catholicism and converted it from the religion _of_ Jesus to a religion _about_ him. He was planted firmly on a pedestal and from that point, no one else was allowed to join him.
> 
> If you need a more explicit explanation, Jesus himself said it best:
> 
> "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve."


Please elaborate more on how the Catholic faith was "corrupted" by the Council of Nicea? Was the "homoousion" clause the ruin of the Xian religion? Was Arius right? How did the Christian faith after the Council differ from what existed previous to it? Why is it that many bishops of the pre-Nicean (hence "uncorrupted" Church) were staunch supporters of the decisions of the Council, e.g., St. Athanasius? Please do enlighten us! Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Clicks stopwatch. I may not win any socks, but I can tell you how soon a theological post will show up to block the needle like a overburdened and over whipped camel. Any takers for a pool on mentioning nazis, Chuck Norris or the Clintons? This is a time of great earthly AND spiritual pleasure for me. My Chabbad Nieghbors walk on the Sabbath and enjoy my company, theres the sensory pleasure of candles, incense and ancient liturgies at my orthodox church and a connection with history and tradition so many people in their flip flop and tshirt misery hunger for and go wanting.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Please elaborate more on how the Catholic faith was "corrupted" by the Council of Nicea? Was the "homoousion" clause the ruin of the Xian religion? Was Arius right? How did the Christian faith after the Council differ from what existed previous to it? Why is it that many bishops of the pre-Nicean (hence "uncorrupted" Church) were staunch supporters of the decisions of the Council, e.g., St. Athanasius? Please do enlighten us! Inquiring minds want to know.


Enlighten? It's just opinions here, and you know what they say about opinions.

With that said, if you know the history of "homoousion" (or at least a bit of Greek) you'll know the phrase is completely ambiguous, and can mean one of at least four different things. Even the church's fathers at the time of the Nicean Council couldn't agree on its meaning.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm

The absurd (and IMO heretical to the faith) decision they made is the result of what happens when mortal men presume to understand the nature of God, and relegate Him to the status of a Chevy Buick -- a machine with a finite number of parts.

As mentioned earlier, Jesus himself is quoted throughout the New Testament as clarifying the distinction between himself and God. "No messenger outranks the one who sent him", "The Father is greater than I" etc etc. The RCC based Trinitarianism on a single passage (an interpolated passage, no less) found at the end of The Gospel of Matthew.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Matters of faith are hardly empirical, but damned if Lewis Carrol wasn't right! Reading your link got me drier than Alice. The second time I was blessed meeting his Holyness the Dalai Lama, our small group got to ask a few spiritual questions. I'm sitting there looking sexier than Brad Pitt in my Khata and the dingy gal next to me asks why God is eliminated from Buddhism. His Holyness sort of pauses, smiles and says, " Ah yes, well western people are usually unhappy in buddhism without 'GOD' but, you know this is a word, as illusionary a word as buddha. The more you talk about it, the more illusions you wrap it in." He then pointed to me. " And your question? You were at L.A. airport a few years ago!" Your Holyness, do you meditate on long plane flights? " his Holyness laughed. " No, I sleep" We all walked out and dingy gal said I blew an opportunity to ask a good question. At that moment I froze in my tracks. My retired Anglican Priest/ anthropology professor grabbed my elbow. " What is it Chris? father, I just stopped asking questions and the mystery of the trinity finally made sense."


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> As mentioned earlier, Jesus himself is quoted throughout the New Testament as clarifying the distinction between himself and God. "No messenger outranks the one who sent him", "The Father is greater than I" etc etc. The RCC based Trinitarianism on a single passage (an interpolated passage, no less) found at the end of The Gospel of Matthew.


Without belaboring all the points--and, yeah, I do know more than a "bit of" Greek--it seems very hard for me to comprehend how anyone could read the Gospel of St. John, in particular, without coming away with the conclusion that Jesus claimed a uniquely divine status for His person. Of course, there are those who regard St. John's Gospel as a less reliable source for the life and sayings of the historical Jesus than the Synoptic Gospels, but that's another matter....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Without belaboring all the points--and, yeah, I do know more than a "bit of" Greek--it seems very hard for me to comprehend how anyone could read the Gospel of St. John, in particular, without coming away with the conclusion that Jesus claimed a uniquely divine status for His person. Of course, there are those who regard St. John's Gospel as a less reliable source for the life and sayings of the historical Jesus than the Synoptic Gospels, but that's another matter....


By the time John was written it had a very specific agenda, an agenda that was as much if not more political than religious.

Personally I don't see any ambiguity about this question. Jesus ran into the same misguided hero worship even during his ministry, e.g. "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

Again, other than a single interpolated passage in Matthew, Jesus made no mention whatsoever of a trinity or even the concept of one. I believe he certainly would have done so, if that was in fact God's true nature.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" Man cannot live on bread alone." Unless one is a taxonomic member of various paper eating larvae, chewing only the menu is spiritual anorexia.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> By the time John was written it had a very specific agenda, an agenda that was as much if not more political than religious.
> 
> Personally I don't see any ambiguity about this question. Jesus ran into the same misguided hero worship even during his ministry, e.g. "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
> 
> Again, other than a single interpolated passage in Matthew, Jesus made no mention whatsoever of a trinity or even the concept of one. I believe he certainly would have done so, if that was in fact God's true nature.


You seem extremely dogmatic in your convictions about these matters, particularly in the old view of the late date of the Johannine literature. I know that Bishop John A.T. Robinson, a noted New Testament scholar and anything but a theological conservative, in his 1976 book "Redating the New Testament" suggested a very early date for the Gospel of John, possibly as early as 40.

I'd be curious to know what you mean by the "political," rather than religious agenda of St. John, unless you mean his disassociating Christianity from Judaism? Is that what you are driving at?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> You seem extremely dogmatic in your convictions about these matters, particularly in the old view of the late date of the Johannine literature. I know that Bishop John A.T. Robinson, a noted New Testament scholar and anything but a theological conservative, in his 1976 book "Redating the New Testament" suggested a very early date for the Gospel of John, possibly as early as 40.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what you mean by the "political," rather than religious agenda of St. John, unless you mean his disassociating Christianity from Judaism? Is that what you are driving at?


Yes. Most Biblical scholars believe (and I agree) the Gospel of John is both reinterpreted and redacted. It may have had its beginnings in an oral tradition as early as 50AD, but the best evidence suggests the text was not completed until at least 90AD and possibly later.

Also, I think it's been established the gospel was structured (or probably restructured) specifically to disassociate Christianity from Judaism, without much or in some cases any regard for what Jesus actually might have done and said. The author's view of Jesus reflects (again IMO) more of a Gnostic pleroma tradition rather than the Judaic (and Christ's own) idea of monotheism. I believe the book belongs in the same class as other early Gnostic works, as does the Book of Revelation.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

But, as far as I know, the apostolic authenticity and scriptural authority of the Gospel of St. John and Johannine Epistles, unlike Revelation, were never challenged within the (mainstream) early church.

If you want to argue that the message of the historical Jesus was corrupted by the being "supernaturalized" (if there is such a word) or "gnosticized" (if you prefer) within 60 years of his death, okay. That a classic liberal protestant argument going back to the 19th century. How then can you shift the blame on the Council of Nicea for the subversion of Christianity? By your reckoning, it would seem this had already happened over 200 years earlier. 

I have always thought that a fundamental weakness of this argument is that the subversion of Christianity sure took place quickly--almost immediately after the passing of the Apostles. If this procedure was well under way by the year 90, when plenty of people who had known and been instructed by the Apostles must have still been around, the Apostles sure must have done a lousy job of passing on the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus, whatever they may have been. So much for Jesus' pledge that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth!


----------

