Engage Da Vinci Code..

[MrVersatile48]

Most USA folk believe Bible over Da Vinci Code

Just in from http://www.crosswalk.com

Most Americans Believe Bible over 'Da Vinci,' Poll Shows

Despite sensational reports to the contrary, most Americans are not buying
the key theological premises of The Da Vinci Code says a
poll commissioned by the North American Mission Board (NAMB).

Baptist Press reports that NAMB commissioned Zogby
International to conduct the poll, which involved a sample of 1,200 adults
surveyed by telephone in March. 23% of Americans have read the novel, while 43% said they were familiar with the content.

Among those who had read it, more than 60% believed that the Bible is closer to the truth, while only 10% believed Dan Brown's novel is more truthful.

Among the entire sample, 72% believed that the Bible was closer to the truth.

"The most striking result from the survey is that after either reading or hearing about The Da Vinci Code 44% of respondents were more likely
to seek the truth by studying the Bible, while only 20% were less likely to
study the Bible," said Ed Stetzer, missiologist and director of NAMB's
Center for Missional Research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In more need of prayer are the many UK/Oz/NZ etc folk who read the book & see the film while knowing very little indeed - if not nothing at all - about what the Bible says & teaches

Apparently, the movie trailer ends with, "Seek the truth"

We sure need to point out that Dan Brown knowingly tells lies about the Almighty Creator & Redeemer to make money

 

[Dave...]

Doesn't is say in the preface of Dan Brown's book that it is a fiction?

 

[Vic C.]

Doesn't is say in the preface of Dan Brown's book that it is a fiction?

Does the average reader even pay attention to the preface?

I saw this over the weekend, not too bad. Did a decent job debunking some of the untruths in the book.

http://www.grizzlyadams.tv/PR/BreakingDaVinciPAX.pdf

also:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 279&EDATE=

 

[Dave...]

Does the average reader even pay attention to the preface?

I was just wondering because I heard about that from someone else. I haven't read the book and almost never read the preface of any books that I read. Based on my limited knowledge of this whole thing, I actually thought that the Discovery channel did a good job of debunking the whole thing, which was very surprising because I never considered them to be pro Christian by any means.

I hope the movie bombs.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Brief quote from http://www.christianitytoday.com:-

Brown's story claims to uncover the "truth" of long-held secrets about Jesus, attacking foundational beliefs of the Christian faithâ€â€including accusations that the Bible is not true, that Jesus was not God, that he fathered children with Mary Magdalene and embraced pagan goddess religion. It also depicts the Roman Catholic Churchâ€â€and Christianity in generalâ€â€as attempting to cover up these alleged "truths" with a diabolical web of lies and murder.


But these kinds of claims are nothing new. Christian-haters have been spinning conspiracy theories since the day of the Resurrection, when the chief priests started a whispering campaign that Jesus' disciples stole his body. Nero pinned his burning of Rome on the Christians in a first-century conspiracy theory of persecution.

The Da Vinci Code is not unlike another conspiracy theory created in the late 19th century, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This hate-filled hit piece was written by an anti-Semite to "expose" a non-existent conspiracy of a cabal of Jews to take over the world. Its intent was to demonize Judaism and feed irrational bigotry against the Jews. Millions in the Muslim world still believe it today, which props up their hatred of Jews.

A gullible public

When it comes to Da Vinci, the real problem is not Dan Brown's fiction. He has the moral and Constitutional right to craft any kind of tangled logic and laughable paranoia against Christianity that his mind can devise or "borrow" from other conspiracy nuts and bigots. The problem is the gullibility of the public and its susceptibility to a well-told story, regardless of its historical veracity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I listened to 3 programmes, on different Christian TV channels, last night while doing chores, so I had no time to take notes

I'm sure http://www.ucb.tv will repeat their "Where Fact Meets Fiction" tonight

It was quite mind-blowing just how many historical errors Dan Brown makes, & the UCB show quotes them, with their page numbers, then gives the truth

Brown falsely says that temple prostitution was part of Jewish worship, but the Bible prophets consistently speak out against such evils - as in Jeremiah 44 & Deuteronomy 18, etc - promiscuity has always led to awful diseases & the Bible warned about that

Brown falsely claims that the Dead Sea Scrolls had hidden Christian writings, but they were all Jewish Old Testament Scriptures, all written centuries before Jesus was born

The New Testament was all written by the end of the 1st century & writings of early church leaders show that it was all accepted as the Word of God

The Gnostic Gospels were all written 100-150 years later - when the people whose names they falsely bore - like Philip, Mary & Thomas - were all long dead

Thomas ends saying that women are not worthy of life - way outa line with Bible teaching - yet Brown claims it's feminist

Almost all art historians disagree with Brown's false Da Vinci Code - the Last Supper painting has the 12 disciples & it was fashionable in the Florentine school of painting, to which Da Vinci belonged, to depict young men, like young John there, as looking somewhat effeminate

The figure to Christ's right is John - why would he be missing from the 12?

Much more, but time is up!

Ian

 

[Dave...]

Hey Ian, I think that I may have seen the same show a few nights ago. Your material sounds almost word for word. Was Irwin lutzer, or something like that on this show? I think he's from Moody.

BTW, I found this on Moody. Free download.

http://www.davincicontroversy.com/GenMo ... 4DDC2252DD

Dave

 

[MrVersatile48]

Yup: Erwin Lutzer & Josh McDowell combine brilliance with the common touch

 

[ArtGuy]

Doesn't is say in the preface of Dan Brown's book that it is a fiction?

It contains the standard, "This is a work of fiction, all characters/places/yadda yadda yadda," disclaimer, yes. But it also specifically states that the portrayals of the Priory of Sion and Opus Dei are accurate and factual. This even though the Priory of Sion was a hoax, and has long been revealed as such. The book essentially gets the bulk of its information from a work called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", which even the secular historical community dismisses as a load of crap. Beyond that, Brown also plays fast and loose with his description of art history.

If Brown had said, "Hey, I made all this up," it would be an interesting basis for a book. Hey, what if a major religion was actually based on a giant conspiracy? But trying to sell it as historically accurate is just cruddy.

Also, the writing is garbage. I'm about 150 pages in, and it's painful to read. The only reason I'm continuing is because I find the kerflufle surrounding the book interesting, and I'm curious as to the differences between real history and Brownian history.

 

[AHIMSA]

I thought the book was an interesting read, and while much of it is obviously fiction, and sometimes outright lies about history I think there are elements of truth to it, for example, the Church's supression of the Divine Feminine, which is obvious in its doctrine of the "eternall male" Christ and its all male priesthood. (Not to suggest the Church has been trying to deliberately conceal something, like the 'truth' about Magdalene)

However, I do believe that there was much more to Mary Magdalene than appears in the Canonized Gospels, and I believe it to be very possible that Jesus was married. In light of the fact that all of the gospels were written after the time of St. Paul, who had a negative view of marriage, and the fact that there would be theological complications, I can see why the gospel writers would fail to mention his marriage if it were true, as each gospel presents a specific view of Jesus and organizies and edits the material according to his message.

If anything, I think opening ourselves to the possiblity of Jesus being married, whether to Magdalene or perhaps a woman who died before his ministry began, is a good thing.

 

[Vic C.]

In light of the fact that all of the gospels were written after the time of St. Paul, who had a negative view of marriage, and the fact that there would be theological complications, I can see why the gospel writers would fail to mention his marriage if it were true, as each gospel presents a specific view of Jesus and organizies and edits the material according to his message.

If anything, I think opening ourselves to the possiblity of Jesus being married, whether to Magdalene or perhaps a woman who died before his ministry began, is a good thing.

In an effort to continue in the light of 'engaging' the book and movie, maybe someone would like to step in a describe the "theological complications" of Jesus possibly marrying. I would, but wouldn't know where to start. :-?

 

[destiny]

When it comes to Da Vinci, the real problem is not Dan Brown's fiction. He has the moral and Constitutional right to craft any kind of tangled logic and laughable paranoia against Christianity that his mind can devise or "borrow" from other conspiracy nuts and bigots. The problem is the gullibility of the public and its susceptibility to a well-told story, regardless of its historical veracity.

Amen!
Maybe God is saying "who do you say I am"

 

[Free]

I think there are elements of truth to it, for example, the Church's supression of the Divine Feminine, which is obvious in its doctrine of the "eternall male" Christ and its all male priesthood.

If Christ is an eternal male it is because he was a male. Pretty simple. There is no suppression of the "Divine Feminine". This is nothing more than the same sort of speculation Brown's fiction is based on.

In light of the fact that all of the gospels were written after the time of St. Paul, who had a negative view of marriage,

Show just one place where we see Paul's supposed negative view of marriage.

I can see why the gospel writers would fail to mention his marriage if it were true, as each gospel presents a specific view of Jesus and organizies and edits the material according to his message.

No, this doesn't hold up at all considering everything that did make it into the gospels.

If anything, I think opening ourselves to the possiblity of Jesus being married, whether to Magdalene or perhaps a woman who died before his ministry began, is a good thing.

If Jesus had been married, it would have been mentioned, whether before, during or after his ministry. The problem is that if it was supposed to have been after his ministry, which ends with his death on the cross, then he couldn't have died. This would mean that Christianity is a sham and Christ is the most morally reprehensible person in history and as such we ought to throw out all his teachings.

The fact remains that there is not one shred of evidence for the claim that Jesus was married. There is a reason Dan Brown will not debate any scholar on the claims he makes.

It's all about sensationalism. In this post-modern world where people distrust institutions it is little surprise that conspriacy theories surrounding Christ's nature and purpose are going to be so easily believed, especially since according to Holy Scripture and tradition Christ taught that eternal life is only for those who believe in him.

 

[MrVersatile48]

While this site was down, on Tues, I yahoo'd 'sacred feminine' & it confirmed that it means goddess-worship

As already said here, the ancient 'goddesses' of fertility cults were false fronts to promote promiscuous orgies (as a phoney way to ensure fertile lands & abundant harvests)

Many folk were painfully killed in epidemics that wiped out whole towns

When God says something is wrong, it's because it's harmful & detrimental

When He says something is right, it's because it's beneficial

He designed & made us, so He knows us much better than we know ourselves

Just time to link a 3rd thread that has several other resources linked:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=22702

Must go

Ian

 

[AHIMSA]

Was Yeshua Married?

Obviously, there is no conclusive evidence that Jesus was married, what we are discussing here is possible theories. It is possible that Jesus was married, it is also likely that he wasn’t. In the end we can not be completely sure.

Firstly, we should remember that marriage was strongly reinforced in Jewish society and it would have been expected of Jesus by his family to marry. Secondly, Jesus doesn’t begin his ministry until he is roughly thirty years old. A Jewish male would, again, most likely have been married before he was thirty, especially considering the low life expectancy among the peasant class of which Jesus was a part of. Jesus was not always a spiritual ascetic, as we know he was a carpenter before he came to the understanding of his higher calling.
The possible scenario this posits is that Jesus was indeed married while still a carpenter, but his wife died before his ministry began, or that his wife accompanied him on his ministry, but as we can see, the authors of the Gospels generally do not portray Jesus’ female disciples as spiritually insightful.

Now, if Jesus was indeed married or had been married, why would the gospel writers fail to mention this?

Firstly, we should remember that the Gospels were all written after the time of Paul, who was the most influential man in the spread of early Christianity. No writings from any of Jesus’ disciples that knew him during his earthly ministry have survived.

Firstly, both Paul and the author of the gospels had the distinct impression that Jesus was returning to bring an end to the world within their very lifetimes. This is obvious when the gospels record such things as Jesus saying “some of you here will not taste death before you see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven†and Jesus’ various prophecies about the end of the age, speaking to his disciples as though they were themselves to witness it. This belief creates a problem regarding marriage. Marriage exists, in the ancient mindset, for the purpose of pro-creation and continuing life on earth. If the world was to come to an end within days, moths or years, what would be the use of marriage? What purpose would it serve? The model of a married Jesus would then prove to be unworkable, or, at least, an aspect of his life that was not something to be imitated. As the authors of the Gospels were recording Jesus’ heavenly ministry on earth, that is, his sole concern of ushering in the immanent Kingdom of God, his marriage becomes obsolete.
Secondly, Paul’s writings, which largely influenced the tone of the gospels, were not in favor of marriage:

“It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.â€Â
“Now, to the unmarried and the widows I say “It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am, but if they cannot control themselves, they should marry for it is better to marry than to burn with passionâ€Â

1 Corinthians 7:11

As well, in 1 Timothy, 5:11 , it is written

“as for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they will want to marry.â€Â

As you can see, as evidence by the writings of the early Christians, marriage was not seen as something bad nor evil, but rather as a symptom of weakness. People who could not overcome their passions and lust were advised to marry. Whereas celibacy is implied to be a characteristic of the spiritually strong.
Paul cites his own celibacy as a trait of his spiritual strength. And while it is true that he mentions the marriages of Peter and other disciples, we must keep in mind that Paul often clashed with the disciples in Jerusalem, and no doubt, as is seen in his writings, he considered himself more spiritually mature than those that belonged to the Church in Jerusalem.

If Jesus had indeed been married, the authors of the gospels, writing after the time Paul, would have reasons to not mention Jesus’ marriage as Jesus was seen to be sinless. Thus marriage would have seen as a sign of Jesus’ weakness.

Again, I am not saying that there is any actual evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else, that is obviously speculation. However, what I am saying is that it is possible that Jesus was married and that certain theological views and ideals of what it meant to be holy may have filtered this marriage out (if there had been one)

However, I do think the Da Vinci Code spoke partial truths, for example, the Churches suppression and destruction of the Divine Feminine, as is evidenced in the “eternally male Christ†and the Catholic demand that the mediators between God and man, the priesthood, also be solely male:

If Christ is an eternal male it is because he was a male. Pretty simple. There is no suppression of the "Divine Feminine". This is nothing more than the same sort of speculation Brown's fiction is based on.

I realize that Jesus was a male. However, Christians claim him be God. God is said to be without gender, or to be both genders. The person of Jesus of Nazareth was male, but there is no need to say that the Third Person of the Trinity was “eternally maleâ€Â, that is, beyond its fleshly incarnation on earth. So the Christ would have been incarnated as male, but not “eternally maleâ€Â. The fact of that matter is that, before Christianity, the Divine Feminine was worshipped, after Christianity emerged only the Divine Masculine was worshipped.

Lastly, I do believe there is more to Mary Magdalene than meets the eye. As is noted:
- Mary is the first to announce that Jesus has been raised from the dead
- She is the first in every listing of Jesus’ female disciples
- Every gospel names her as the first eye witness of his resurrection

I think we can infer her that Mary Magdalene obviously had a special place and tremendous spiritual insight, but that the gospel authors, writing in male dominated times, did not feel the need to place any more emphasis on her. The truth about her place in Jesus’ ministry will never be known, but the prestige is only hinted at.

 

[Free]

Obviously, there is no conclusive evidence that Jesus was married, what we are discussing here is possible theories. It is possible that Jesus was married, it is also likely that he wasn’t. In the end we can not be completely sure.

Actually, we can be completely sure simply because the OT never mentions that the Messiah was going to be married and the NT never states anything about Jesus being married. In other words, the entirety of Scripture doesn't even so much as hint that the Messiah was to be married or ever was married. The simple fact remains that any speculation of Jesus being married remains only a fanciful idea.

Firstly, we should remember that marriage was strongly reinforced in Jewish society and it would have been expected of Jesus by his family to marry.

As far as I know there is no belief that the Messiah would be married.

A Jewish male would, again, most likely have been married before he was thirty, especially considering the low life expectancy among the peasant class of which Jesus was a part of. Jesus was not always a spiritual ascetic, as we know he was a carpenter before he came to the understanding of his higher calling.

Firstly, Jesus was well aware of his high calling at a very young age:

Luk 2:40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.

Luk 2:46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
Luk 2:48 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress."
Luk 2:49 And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

It is plausible that Joseph diead when Jesus was young and Jesus, being the eldest son, worked to keep bread on the table. Secondly, the age at which Jesus began his ministry may coincide with when Rabbis normally began ministry. His age really has no bearing on whether or not he was married.

Firstly, we should remember that the Gospels were all written after the time of Paul, who was the most influential man in the spread of early Christianity. No writings from any of Jesus’ disciples that knew him during his earthly ministry have survived.

You don't believe that John wrote any of the books that bear his name? As for dating, it too is irrelevant in this matter, especially since dating the canonical texts, although essentially based on educated guesses, are guesses nonetheless.

Firstly, both Paul and the author of the gospels had the distinct impression that Jesus was returning to bring an end to the world within their very lifetimes.

This point really does not give any substantial reason for believing why the NT wouldn't mention any marriage of Jesus. Whether or not the writers of the NT believed in the immediate return of Christ has no bearing on why they would fail to mention the marriage of their Lord.

Secondly, Paul’s writings, which largely influenced the tone of the gospels, were not in favor of marriage:

Paul's view of marriage is not a negative one. This argument undermines your previous argument that marriage was reinforced in Jewish society, espeically since Paul was a Jew among Jews.

As you can see, as evidence by the writings of the early Christians, marriage was not seen as something bad nor evil, but rather as a symptom of weakness.

If it was a symptom of weakness, then it would be evil. You have failed to mention that Paul uses the analogy of marriage for the coming together of the Church and Christ.

The person of Jesus of Nazareth was male, but there is no need to say that the Third Person of the Trinity was “eternally maleâ€Â, that is, beyond its fleshly incarnation on earth.

You switched your argument from "is eternally male" to "was eternally male". My reponse was directed at your initial argument.

The fact of that matter is that, before Christianity, the Divine Feminine was worshipped, after Christianity emerged only the Divine Masculine was worshipped.

So we can therefore conclude that Christians ought not to worship the Divine Feminine as it is not Christian, not of Christ.

Lastly, I do believe there is more to Mary Magdalene than meets the eye. As is noted:
- Mary is the first to announce that Jesus has been raised from the dead
- She is the first in every listing of Jesus’ female disciples
- Every gospel names her as the first eye witness of his resurrection

Your first point derives from your third point, which when taken together, give us a strong reason to believe that Jesus was never married. This is embarassing information being given (the giving and trusting of a woman's testimony) and is used by many scholars to point out the truth of the gospels in their portrayal of Christ.

That Mary M is often/always listed first is irrelevant to any possibility of her being married to Christ. Using the same line of reasoning I could argue that Peter, James, or John were married to Christ.

I think we can infer her that Mary Magdalene obviously had a special place and tremendous spiritual insight,

I don't think we can infer that, particularly that she had "tremendous spiritual insight". Where can we possibly infer that from?

but that the gospel authors, writing in male dominated times, did not feel the need to place any more emphasis on her.

But as I stated above, the way Mary (and other women for that matter) is mentioned in the gospels was revolutionary for that time. The emphasis that was placed was unprecedented. You are simply reading back a 21st century understanding into the social context. In fact, it is recognized that the NT (and Christianity) did much to elevate women, far surpassing the male dominated cultures of that time.

The truth about her place in Jesus’ ministry will never be known, but the prestige is only hinted at.

The truth is what is there; there is no reason at all to even believe that there is some other truth about Mary and her relationship to Christ and his ministry. This argument obviously presupposes that the truth is not in the gospels, but I have shown that there is no reason to not believe the gospel accounts.

 

[AHIMSA]

Free,

It is useless to continue various portions of this discussion, for we obviously have very different ideas as to what connotates historically reliable matieral and what constitutes an honest exegesis of biblical material (for example, to me, biblical prophecies would play no role in determining whether or not it is possible for Jesusto have had a wife) As well, I also consider Jesus' birth narratives and childhood narratives to be non-historical and recorded for different purposes (as do many scholars). However, we could argue this for weeks, and neither will emerge the wiser. So I will stop that here. You don't believe it was possible for Jesus to have had a wife, and I do. Its a difference of opinion.

However, in reference to what I said about Mary Magdalene, I was not saying that she was neccessarliy his wife, but that her place among the disciples is hinted at within the gospels. Again, since you look to the gospels assuming they contain all the truth there is to know about Jesus, you will take everything the gospels say at face value. I can not convince you otherwise, I can only say its not scholarly.

Mary Magdalene is the first woman mentioned everytime Christ's female followers are mentioned and she is the first to speak of and witness his Ressurection. This is a great honor, and speaks of tremendous spiriutal insight, for the arrangment of the gospel matieral is also meant to tell us something (but again, you take it only at face value). If Magdalene is always the first to speak of the Risen Christ and the first to encounter him, the Ressurection being the culmination of his entire ministry, what does this suggest? That Mary Magdalene is the first to take part in the culmination of his entire Divine Mission? For anybody looking for what the gospels might be saying more subtely, it seems that Magdalene had a special place.

However, even this we could argue to no avail. So I ask you to respond then to questions about the Divine Feminine.

I said "Before Christianity the Divine Feminie was worshipped, afterwords it was not" and you replied:

So we can therefore conclude that Christians ought not to worship the Divine Feminine as it is not Christian, not of Christ.

What you are assuming is that EVERYTHING Christianity does is right and in accordance with God. Do you leave no room for error? Has Christ's human Church never made mistakes? Never missed Christ's message? The disciples are always portrayed as lacking in understanding, so I think you should be less quick to place so much faith in Christianity, and perhaps place a little more faith in God.

You switched your argument from "is eternally male" to "was eternally male". My reponse was directed at your initial argument.

I didn't switch my argument. Eternity goes in both directions. If Christ is eternally male, he was male before the incarnation and after. My argument is this:

Christ is only male in his incarnation in the flesh. Beyond our material world, Christ is neither male nor female.. God is said to be neither male nor female, yet so many Christians only think of him in male terms. In the eternal maleness of Christ, we are declaring God to be 1/3 male! (however theologically crude this sounds).

Gender proceeds from God, and so God takes upon certain images of gender when he communicates to us (invetably), for we have no understanding of his nature in which both genders are united, reconciled and disolved.

We so often refer to God as "Father" and we even call the Holy Spirit a "he". It is obvious that we place tremendous stress on the Divine Masculine. But considering that God is neither male nor female, do we not do an injustice to womanhood when we only refer to him through the framework of the Divine Masculine? Where is the Divine Feminie?

Would someone then please explain to me what the complications are in refering to God in the feminine, either calling God Mother, or thinking of the Holy Spirit as the Holy Shekinah (that is, in the feminine)? So many Christians seem so opposed to this, they are adamant that we can only see the masculine in the divine, never the feminine. Yet they also assert that Christianity is good for women? How so? Women so obviously do not reflect God as much as men!!

This is the truth the Da Vinci Code I believe, and it was being discussed long before Dan Brown came along.

 

[Free]

(for example, to me, biblical prophecies would play no role in determining whether or not it is possible for Jesusto have had a wife)

But my point was that you argued to Hebrew culture all-the-while ignoring their beliefs. If you want to argue to Hebrew culture, you must take their beliefs into account. The only other option would be to concede that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

As well, I also consider Jesus' birth narratives and childhood narratives to be non-historical and recorded for different purposes (as do many scholars).

I am seeing a trend emerging in your beliefs: anything that would be miraculous or supernatural cannot be historically based, only narrative. In "many scholars" I assume you mean mainly those such as the Jesus Seminar and the like. If that is the case, it certainly wouldn't be "many".

Regardless, I am curious as to what grounds you have for believing the childhood and birth stories to be non-historical, espeically when you seem to believe other things the NT states about Christ.

However, we could argue this for weeks, and neither will emerge the wiser. So I will stop that here. You don't believe it was possible for Jesus to have had a wife, and I do. Its a difference of opinion.

But the problem, as I pointed out previously, is this: your (or anyone's) argument that it is possible Jesus had a wife is based on no evidence whatsoever; it is all just mere conjecture.

This raises an inconsistency in defending this position: on the one hand you dismiss all supposed non-historical evidence (implying that there is historical evidence), but on the other hand you say it is all "just a difference of opinion". In other words, while you are dismissing all non-historical evidence (which is non-historical in your opinion), you argue from your opinion without any historical evidence.

In light of the evidence it is far more rational to believe that Jesus never was married and not just a mere difference of opinion.

Again, since you look to the gospels assuming they contain all the truth there is to know about Jesus, you will take everything the gospels say at face value. I can not convince you otherwise, I can only say its not scholarly.

Again you want to bring scholars into this. Go ahead, tell me what other evidence for Christ exists that some or "many" scholars believe in and which scholars believe it. Whether or not the gospels contain all the truth there is to know about Jesus, they certainly contain the vast majority of it.

What you are assuming is that EVERYTHING Christianity does is right and in accordance with God. Do you leave no room for error? Has Christ's human Church never made mistakes? Never missed Christ's message? The disciples are always portrayed as lacking in understanding, so I think you should be less quick to place so much faith in Christianity, and perhaps place a little more faith in God.

As you stated: "Before Christianity the Divine Feminie was worshipped, afterwords it was not". My conclusion follows based on what you said. If the Divine Feminine is pagan, which is implied in your statement, then surely we must not worship it. How you get the above out of my logical conclusion based on your statement is beyond me.

I didn't switch my argument. Eternity goes in both directions. If Christ is eternally male, he was male before the incarnation and after.

So then you must also conclude either of the following regarding believers having eternal life:

1. We have always had eternal life, or
2. Eternal doesn't really mean eternal.

Do you believe John 3:16 or not?

Christ is only male in his incarnation in the flesh. Beyond our material world, Christ is neither male nor female

I don't think you will be able to support this from Scripture regarding Christ after his ascension, as he is now. But please try.

God is said to be neither male nor female, yet so many Christians only think of him in male terms.

While I agree that God is neither male nor female, He reveals himself as male, as "Father" for a reason. Never does God address himself directly as feminine or as "Mother".

But considering that God is neither male nor female, do we not do an injustice to womanhood when we only refer to him through the framework of the Divine Masculine? Where is the Divine Feminie?

Other than perhaps the personification of Wisdom in the OT, there is no Divine Feminine in Scripture. Your beef then is with God and his revelation, not man. And no, there is no injustice done to womanhood.

Would someone then please explain to me what the complications are in refering to God in the feminine, either calling God Mother, or thinking of the Holy Spirit as the Holy Shekinah (that is, in the feminine)?

First, as I stated above, God never refers to himself as "she" or "Mother". He chose to reveal himself as "he" and "Father" for a reason and that is how it ought to remain. Second, the term "Holy Spirit" is neuter in the Greek.

Are you not one of the ones who argues against certain aspects of Christianity, claiming they are pagan in origin? Why then would you be arguing to include something pagan in Christianity?

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, we can be completely sure simply because the OT never mentions that the Messiah was going to be married and the NT never states anything about Jesus being married. In other words, the entirety of Scripture doesn't even so much as hint that the Messiah was to be married or ever was married. The simple fact remains that any speculation of Jesus being married remains only a fanciful idea.

Good points Free. Since prophecy makes up a good portion of Scripture, this pretty much settles it for me.

Mary Magdalene is the first woman mentioned everytime Christ's female followers are mentioned and she is the first to speak of and witness his Ressurection.

Every time? What about Mary and Martha? Thay were followers of Jesus.

Mary Magdalene never witnessed the Ressurection. She was however, the first to witness the resurrectrd Jesus afterwards.

 

[AHIMSA]

Free,

You're right, I am talking about historical conjecture, I stated this all along, I am discussing a mere possiblity. Each of the gospels were written to portray a certain image of Jesus, and each saw him as the messiah, each gospel also made changes to the matieral to proclaim his Christhood. One of your reasons why Jesus could not of had a wife was because messianic prophecies did not foresee a wife of the messiah. Jesus was seen as the messenger of God's kingdom, ushering in the world's final days. No doubt, the theology of the gospel writers got in the way of what historically happened.

I am not saying Jesus had a wife neccessarliy, I am saying that I can see how, if he did, mention of her might have been ommitted from the gospels, especially considering the first gospel was written almost 40 years after his death!

However, since you see the gospels as the divine word of God, I suspect you fail to see how the material was manipulated to suit the author's vision.

But my point was that you argued to Hebrew culture all-the-while ignoring their beliefs. If you want to argue to Hebrew culture, you must take their beliefs into account. The only other option would be to concede that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

This is precisely what I am saying, Jesus was not technically "the messiah". This is very evident, despite the numerous attempts to attach him to various so called "messianic prophecies". The messiah was expected to be a military hero/ prophet who would free Israel from the clutches of Rome and bring an end to the world, thus bringing about God's reign. While Jesus' followers still proclaimed him to be the messiah, it was a radical new understanding of what the messiah was, hence the reason why so many Jews rejected the Christian movement. The Jews would never have imagined their messiah would have been put to death on a cross like a common criminal by the very authority that he had come to destroy!

So I am not saying that Jesus is not the messiah, but that he really didn't fit the expectations of the messiah.

The Virgin Birth Narratives:

As I said, despite that Jesus obviously was not the military hero that was expected of the messiah, the gospel writers did their best to link him to the Jewish scriptures. This is evident in the birth narratives, where the author of Matthew creates a story to portray the following: that Jesus was a divine messenger, the son of God, the new Moses.

The narrative is rife with the mythology used in ancient times, Jesus was not the first great leader to be "born of a virgin", or who's birth was preceeded by magical signs. We know that Jesus wasn't actually born in Bethlehem, he was born in Nazareth, and he is always called "a Nazarene". Since Matthew knew that Bethlehem was the town that David was born in, he devised a way to place Jesus in Bethlehem. This is where Herod comes in. The Herod story places Jesus in the town of David. Notcie this narrative does not begin in Nazareth, as Luke will, but suggests that Mary and Joseph had always lived in Bethlehem.. Jesus then becomes a child who, as an infant, escapes the slaughter of the innocent, just like Moses. Matthew will continue this parallel when Jesus gives "the Sermon on the Mount". This is intended to show that Jesus was the giver of the New Law, on a "mountain" similar to Sinai. There is actually no "mount", and by the time Luke rights, he refers to it as "the Sermon on the Plains". So obviously, Matthew was moulding the material to put forth a message.

Not only is Jesus miraculous birth of a virgin and conceived of by the Holy Spirit not mentioned in the letters of Paul, but the account that Luke draws up actually adds and changes what Matthew said, so that the two are in blatant contradiction. Luke changes to the story to:
- Mary and Joseph begin in Nazareth
-the travel to Bethlehem because of a Roman Census
- there is no mention of the murderous intentions of Herod
- there is no escape to Egpyt
- places Mary and Joseph in a stable

All this are additions/changes to the original narrative. Really, an coherent scholar will tell you that the virgin birth narratives are stories meant to convey certain meangins about the person of Jesus. The authors were'nt lying, in the ancient world people had the freedom to do such things, and it would have originally been understood to be "midrash".