The Da Vinci Code - Christians paranoid?

[TampaWRX]

Are Christians really so paranoid as to think The Da Vinci Code was written as an attack on Christianity? It would seem some Christians are. I read the book, enjoyed it completely and did consider some of the books accounts of Biblical history, but I'm an Atheist! I didn't see anything in the book that would make a devout believer change their minds. If their beliefs were that flexible to begin with, I say it's good for them to start asking questions. I'm just amazed that Christians are so worried as to publish multiple books rebutting a work of fiction. I guess when one work of fiction questions another, the fans of one must strike back at their attacker(s), whether they are real or imagined.;) Every Christian conservative's favorite newspaper has the story. Enjoy if you dare. :)

Full story at link
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/books/27CODE.html?hp
Fearing that the best-selling novel "The Da Vinci Code" may be sowing doubt about basic Christian beliefs, a host of Christian churches, clergy members and Bible scholars are rushing to rebut it.

In 13 months, readers have bought more than six million copies of the book, a historical thriller that claims Christianity was founded on a cover-up — that the church has conspired for centuries to hide evidence that Jesus was a mere mortal, married Mary Magdalene and had children whose descendants live in France.

Word that the director Ron Howard is making a movie based on the book has intensified the critics' urgency. More than 10 books are being released, most in April and May, with titles that promise to break, crack, unlock or decode "The Da Vinci Code." Churches are offering pamphlets and study guides for readers who may have been prompted by the novel to question their faith. Large audiences are showing up for Da Vinci Code lectures and sermons.

"Because this book is such a direct attack against the foundation of the Christian faith, it's important that we speak out," said the Rev. Erwin W. Lutzer, author of "The Da Vinci Deception" and senior pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, an influential evangelical pulpit.

The Rev. James L. Garlow, co-author with Prof. Peter Jones of "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" and pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, said: "I don't think it's just an innocent novel with a fascinating plot. I think it's out there to win people over to an incorrect and historically inaccurate view, and it's succeeding. People are buying into the notion that Jesus is not divine, he is not the son of God."

Among "The Da Vinci Code" critics are evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who regard the novel, which is laced with passages celebrating feminism, anticlericalism and pagan forms of worship, as another infiltration by liberal cultural warriors. They also say it exploits public distrust of the Roman Catholic Church in the aftermath of the scandal involving sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

The debunking books range from scholarly hardcovers to slim study guides. Among the publishers are well-known Christian houses like Tyndale and Thomas Nelson and less-familiar outfits. Since most of the books have either appeared in stores very recently or have not yet been published, it is too early to say how they are selling.

[cpwill]

:shrug: i never saw it as that much of an attack, if that's what it was.

i think i'd preffer my attacks to be at least well-educated; it makes them harder and therefore forces me to learn more.

[Albert]

I thought it was a great work of fiction. If it compels people to actually read the Bible and learn about the origins of Christianity then it is a good thing. The difficulty the Roman Catholic Church has is that most of its communicants know very little about its history or structure. When they read this book they are surprised to learn that early Popes were married and that some Gospels seem to contradict one another. The really funny thing is the Catholic Church does not deny the Gnostic Gospels. It simply suggests that they be used to illustrate rather than instruct. Hard to make a good conspiracy theory out of that.

[cpwill]

yeah, the marriage thing didn't get cut off until (i think) the 10th or 11th century; it had nothing at all to do with religion and everything to do with power politics.

but you do have a point; if it compels people to learn then it is doing a good thing. my worry is that most don't actually go through with the learning, just incorporate it into a mass of other things that jumbled together somehow makes a belief system.

as hydrok shows, it can be very tempting.

[Redheat]

I read the book and was completely enthralled. Not only did it get me interested in the bible something I'd never paid much attention to, but I think I've learned more about religion and the church since reading that book then my entire life spotted with bits and pieces of information.

It lead me to the Knights Templar, that lead me to Mary, that lead me to read two books on the Holy Grail. One mentioned in his book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", a couple others. Personally I believe Jesus was married no reason not to, and I can see that the Church's attempts to control the masses hasn't really changed in a thousand years.

Now this is what I'm confused about. The Christians in this country were OUTRAGED that anyone would attempt to prevent the "Passion of the Christ" from being shown. They were offended, and spoke out about their right to not only show this film but have it represent their faith.

NOW they are saying that the Da Vinci Code should not be made because it says something they disagree with? Yet they had NO problem supporting and promoting a film that many jews felt made them look bad.

Amazing the hypocrisy some. One reason I've always had a problem with organized religion.

[cpwill]

It lead me to the Knights Templar, that lead me to Mary, that lead me to read two books on the Holy Grail. One mentioned in his book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", a couple others.
do you buy the theory?

Personally I believe Jesus was married no reason not to,
no reason to believe it, either, and quite alot of circumstancial evidence not to, the most important piece being that something that important and critical in Jesus' life would have been mentioned.

and I can see that the Church's attempts to control the masses hasn't really changed in a thousand years.

ahem, if that's true, then Dan Brown is remarkably healthy for someone who has been burned at the stake after being tortured into a "confession".

Now this is what I'm confused about. The Christians in this country were OUTRAGED that anyone would attempt to prevent the "Passion of the Christ" from being shown.

not really, i just thought that the hollywood oh-it's-anti-semitic hype was overblown and innacurate.

NOW they are saying that the Da Vinci Code should not be made because it says something they disagree with?

shouldn't be made? they're making a movie out of it?

huh, if i were going to pick a brown book to make a movie out of i would have gone with Angels And Demons, i think it's actually a much better story; and you could have so many more cooler effects. buuut, i guess ya gotta go with name recognition.:shrug:
i'll rent it when it comes out. hope it measures up to the book (admittedly a good read)

Amazing the hypocrisy some. One reason I've always had a problem with organized religion.

:rolleyes: hypocrisy is not endemic to religion, it is endemic to humanity. if you want to have a problem with people, fine, just be consistent.;):)

[Hydrok]

as hydrok shows, it can be very tempting.

Not sure I follow

[Redheat]

do you buy the theory?

Which theory? Yes I do believe Jesus was married, and yes I do think they had a child/children, and yes I do think there is a possibility that the Grail refers to her.


no reason to believe it, either, and quite alot of circumstancial evidence not to, the most important piece being that something that important and critical in Jesus' life would have been mentioned.

Actually there are several reasons to believe it. You have to put things in context of the times. In that time Jesus not being married would have gone against his religion. Besides the actions between him and Mary would not have been accepted. There is also the wedding he attends and that his mother was given hostess status, thus implying that she was an important figure thus implying it was her son's wedding. Theres much much more, like I've said there been a couple of books on the subject and they laid it out better then I could in here.


ahem, if that's true, then Dan Brown is remarkably healthy for someone who has been burned at the stake after being tortured into a "confession".[/QUOTE

:confused: Sorry not getting the point. I don't believe I mentioned Dan Brown, and given I said the last 1,000 years it would imply that my comment engulfed a lot larger part of the popuation and the events therein.



[QUOTE]not really, i just thought that the hollywood oh-it's-anti-semitic hype was overblown and innacurate.

You thought? Ok you are welcome to your thoughts. However not everyone viewed it that way. I seen Mel Gibson on some interviews and he most definetly played the vicitm of those who tried to stiffle his movie. Let's not forget that there have been negative reactions to the jewish community due to the movie. So I guess it depends on where you sit. However I do agree that all the hype help market the movie and that there is a good chance that Mel was playing that card.

shouldn't be made? they're making a movie out of it?

Yes, Ron Howard will be making a movie based on the book. The Christian Coalition or whatever they go by, are up in arms and don't want the movie made. Plus they have been very vocal about the book and how they feel it maligns christianity. I'm not sure how jesus being married makes him some kind of sinner, but whatever floats your boat.



huh, if i were going to pick a brown book to make a movie out of i would have gone with Angels And Demons, i think it's actually a much better story; and you could have so many more cooler effects. buuut, i guess ya gotta go with name recognition.:shrug:
i'll rent it when it comes out. hope it measures up to the book (admittedly a good read)

I have no doubt that will be made, it was a very good book. Better? not so sure but a very good read.


:rolleyes: hypocrisy is not endemic to religion, it is endemic to humanity. if you want to have a problem with people, fine, just be consistent

:confused: again fail to understand your point. My implications is that Christanity and the teachings of Jesus don't coincide with the actions of the Church or those faithful to the Church. Millions have been killed in the name of God and I don't find Jesus adovacting such things. Along with judgment which is a regular action by many of the faithful. I don't believe I denied hypcocrisy in humanity, whatever that may imply. It wasn't the subject at hand though so since it wasn't being discussed my not mentioning it isn't a matter of inconsistency but a matter of it not being relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Albert]

This is why I think people so often get all messed up; they confuse faith with belief.

I asked a fellow Catholic these questions:

If Jesus were married would you not believe in his message?
If Joseph and Mary had more children after Jesus would that change his mission?

If your faith is based on beliefs it will always be challenged. If you start with a foundation of faith that there is a God and God has provided to all of us the capacity to seek truth, then we can see Jesus in many different ways and still see the fundamental truth in his teachings. If you believe in his message and you attempt to guide your life by it is it not proof enough?

[Texsand]

This is why I think people so often get all messed up; they confuse faith with belief.

I asked a fellow Catholic these questions:

If Jesus were married would you not believe in his message?
If Joseph and Mary had more children after Jesus would that change his mission?

If your faith is based on beliefs it will always be challenged. If you start with a foundation of faith that there is a God and God has provided to all of us the capacity to seek truth, then we can see Jesus in many different ways and still see the fundamental truth in his teachings. If you believe in his message and you attempt to guide your life by it is it not proof enough?

Excellent post and I agree what difference would it have made in the teaching of peace and love that he brought to an ancient world that was as violent then as now.

Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who are perecuted for my namesake for they shall inherit the kingdom of God. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled.

Love one another as I have love you. Return good for evil. Love your enemy for what does it profit you to love those who love you.

These are the teachings we profess to the world as a "Christian nation". Are we living it or just preaching it. And is there any question about the answer to that question.

[Redheat]

This is why I think people so often get all messed up; they confuse faith with belief.

I asked a fellow Catholic these questions:

If Jesus were married would you not believe in his message?
If Joseph and Mary had more children after Jesus would that change his mission?

If your faith is based on beliefs it will always be challenged. If you start with a foundation of faith that there is a God and God has provided to all of us the capacity to seek truth, then we can see Jesus in many different ways and still see the fundamental truth in his teachings. If you believe in his message and you attempt to guide your life by it is it not proof enough?


:clap:


Faith is something you have, and it isn't just based in something else but it's about faith in yourself. Live by example, if you feel the need to convince someone with judgement then you may not really be as faithful as you present yourself to be. If God controls all things then maybe there was a reason the Da Vinci Code was written? Maybe there is a reason that at this time we need to start asking questions?

If God does indeed control all things, why do people feel the need to silence someone because they don't follow their beliefs? Could it be that by judging and condeming YOU are not following the fate of Gods will? That it's YOU who doesn't see the message?

[cpwill]

Not sure I follow

sorry to single you out, are you not the one who said they had just finished the book?

[cpwill]

Which theory? Yes I do believe Jesus was married, and yes I do think they had a child/children, and yes I do think there is a possibility that the Grail refers to her.

on what evidence?

Actually there are several reasons to believe it. You have to put things in context of the times. In that time Jesus not being married would have gone against his religion.

actually, no it woudn't have;)

Besides the actions between him and Mary would not have been accepted.

you mean it would not have fallen within the social norms for an unmarried man and woman? this is correct, other instances of Jesus developing socially out-of-bounds relationships include his disciple Matthew, the samaritan woman at the well, eating in the house of lepers, eating with zaccheus, feeding and preaching to gentiles, refusing to leave his ministry to go home with his family to nazareth, his openness towards children, healing for roman officials (especially declaring that a roman had more faith than any jew he had found), touching lepers, and the unclean in general, and, of course, teaching women.

There is also the wedding he attends and that his mother was given hostess status,

actually it doesn't. the "master of the banquet" is later identified in the narritave.

thus implying that she was an important figure thus implying it was her son's wedding.

had it been Jesus' wedding, it would have been held in his home, which would have been either in Nazareth, or possibly Capernum (depending on the date, however, as the gospel places it before his ministry begins ("woman,it is not my time"), then it would have likely been in Nazareth); whereas the text clearly states that this event takes place in Cana in Gallilee.

:confused: Sorry not getting the point. I don't believe I mentioned Dan Brown, and given I said the last 1,000 years it would imply that my comment engulfed a lot larger part of the popuation and the events therein.

you said that the church's methods for controlling the masses hadn't changed in the last 1000 years, i asked where all the death scentances for heretics were. also, the number of bibles around seems to disprove the point as well... what happened to "only priests are allowed to read the bible"??

You thought? Ok you are welcome to your thoughts. However not everyone viewed it that way. I seen Mel Gibson on some interviews and he most definetly played the vicitm of those who tried to stiffle his movie. Let's not forget that there have been negative reactions to the jewish community due to the movie. So I guess it depends on where you sit. However I do agree that all the hype help market the movie and that there is a good chance that Mel was playing that card.

i saw the movie. i thought the case could have been made that it was actually much more anti-italian than anti-semitic. heck, the main heroe's were jews.

Yes, Ron Howard will be making a movie based on the book.

lol, it would be him, wouldn't it:rolleyes:

Plus they have been very vocal about the book and how they feel it maligns christianity. I'm not sure how jesus being married makes him some kind of sinner, but whatever floats your boat.

:confused: the theory behind the book attacks the very center of christian beliefs, the core on which everything else is founded; how could you not expect a reaction???

:confused: again fail to understand your point. My implications is that Christanity and the teachings of Jesus don't coincide with the actions of the Church or those faithful to the Church.

of course they don't. christians are sinners just like everyone else.

I don't believe I denied hypcocrisy in humanity, whatever that may imply.

what it implies is that having a problem with organized religion because it is made up of hypocrites is rather like having a problem with organized sports because it is made up of people who breathe.

of course they're going to be hypocrites/breathe. they're human.:)

[Redheat]

what it implies is that having a problem with organized religion because it is made up of hypocrites is rather like having a problem with organized sports because it is made up of people who breathe.

No, you miss the point. They are hypocrites because they force themselves and their beliefs on people because they think they are the only way. Then they fail to live up to the very standards they put forth. Saying it's part of humanity is a cop out. I'm not buying it. If you know you are a hypocrite and you know this is part of being human, then stop trying to claim you know the way when no one else does.

I don't have proof of Jesus being married , nor do you have proof he wasn't. Nothing in the bible is provable. That is the point! Don't say that everyone must believe a book that isn't provable. Also don't tell me that you take that book literally because it's impossible.

[cpwill]

No, you miss the point. They are hypocrites because they force themselves and their beliefs on people because they think they are the only way. Then they fail to live up to the very standards they put forth. Saying it's part of humanity is a cop out. I'm not buying it. If you know you are a hypocrite and you know this is part of being human, then stop trying to claim you know the way when no one else does.

Christians have been shown the best way (of course there are others), we just don't always follow it. thus we are hypocrites. however, our hypocrit-ness in no way manages to "damage" the truth we have been given, any more than a politicians actions in office will effect at all whether or not he was originally elected.
this does not make us any different from anyone else. every one (possible exception of sociopaths) fails to live up to their own standard of morality. everyone. nobody is even perfect by their standards, much less by the christian ones. furthermore we live in a world where everyone tries to force their system on each other. i am told (for instance) that if i were a teacher i wouldn't be allowed to lead a prayer in school. athiests, forcing their way on me. i am told that i am not allowed to run naked down the streets; there you go again, others forcing their morality on me. ditto for rape, murder, theft, etc. etc.; if we do not impose a group morality upon all individuals within a society then the society degenerates into anarchy.

I don't have proof of Jesus being married , nor do you have proof he wasn't. Nothing in the bible is provable. That is the point!

putting it (what was your phrase) "in the context of the times", however, we can see that the argument that for Jesus not to have been married would have been against his tradition/religion isn't necessarily accurate. thus, we cannot accept a lack of evidence as evidence. we can't prove or disprove the theory that space aliens founded the city of atlantis, which then created and spread civilization to the human race in places like sumeria, eqypt, and china; however, if you were to try to find any legitimate historians who were willing to give the theory the time of day then you would have a very tough time indeed.

Don't say that everyone must believe a book that isn't provable.

have i ever said that?

Also don't tell me that you take that book literally because it's impossible.

depends on what you mean by "literally", i suppose, and which book you are talking about (The Bible being a collection of books).

[TampaWRX]

Why wouldn't have Jesus married and sired children? Isn't that what his lord asks all of his subjects to do via the "multiple and be fruitful" doctrine? Why do people care if Jesus was married and had children? Does engaging in something so human dilute his message? It is strange to see conservative Christians(presumably) arguing against the possibility of virtuous and sanctified marriage. People wrote and rewrote the Bible several times. Isn't it possible Jesus' marriage was at some point exclusive to extend the "divinity" of his character? In a book so full of fables and myths, I see no reason why we should accept any of it as objective history. Believers can do as they will, but non-believers should not be discouraged from asking questions. It is a curious subject and I think it is one worth exploring simply because it is interesting. I can admit to not being too concerned about the ultimate conclusion, as I do not believe in any man's divine origins, but it is an interesting topic, hence my post about it and the responses so far. :)

[Albert]

Why wouldn't have Jesus married and sired children? Isn't that what his lord asks all of his subjects to do via the "multiple and be fruitful" doctrine? Why do people care if Jesus was married and had children? Does engaging in something so human dilute his message? It is strange to see conservative Christians(presumably) arguing against the possibility of virtuous and sanctified marriage. People wrote and rewrote the Bible several times. Isn't it possible Jesus' marriage was at some point exclusive to extend the "divinity" of his character? In a book so full of fables and myths, I see no reason why we should accept any of it as objective history. Believers can do as they will, but non-believers should not be discouraged from asking questions. It is a curious subject and I think it is one worth exploring simply because it is interesting. I can admit to not being too concerned about the ultimate conclusion, as I do not believe in any man's divine origins, but it is an interesting topic, hence my post about it and the responses so far. :)

The controversy about a possible Holy Royal Bloodline as alluded to in the book has to do with issues that are more important to Monarchists than we American humanists. Remember it was not to long ago that Royals thought they were granted divine destiny to rule.

Peter and Paul believed that the Church should be about the message, not the man and certainly not the man’s possible family. The message was what Jesus was crucified for and by promoting his teachings they followed his will.

If there was a royal bloodline and I as a distant descendant of some obscure French Noble turned out to be connected to that bloodline would that make me fit to speak for God?

I didn’t think so.
:)

[cpwill]

Why wouldn't have Jesus married and sired children? Isn't that what his lord asks all of his subjects to do via the "multiple and be fruitful" doctrine? Why do people care if Jesus was married and had children? Does engaging in something so human dilute his message? It is strange to see conservative Christians(presumably) arguing against the possibility of virtuous and sanctified marriage.

that's not necessarily the main point. its' the entire concept of a Jesus who was just a particularly good rabbi that is something that we have to react against. furthermore, the idea of a married jesus, that the gospels would leave out something that important? it's touchy.

and the bible is hardly against marriage. one of the main points for Jesus being single is that when paul was listing the leaders in the early church who were married (Cephus/Peter, Barnabas, etc.) he did not mention Jesus. it's just that anything we would consider to be an untruth about the nature and personhood of Jesus is automatically going to draw return fire, Him being the center of our faith and all;)

People wrote and rewrote the Bible several times. Isn't it possible Jesus' marriage was at some point exclusive to extend the "divinity" of his character?

it would have had to have been done pretty quickly. we have copies of the gospels that date from the 3rd and 4th centuries; none of them mention a married Jesus.

In a book so full of fables and myths, I see no reason why we should accept any of it as objective history.

Old Testament, certainly not, it was often written hundreds of years after the events described, having gone through centuries of oral tradition. however, when one gets' to the New Testament then one is dealing with alternately first and second-hand sources, classic historical bases. was it objective? no, the gospels and the epistles were all written with a purpose in mind (several of them come out and tell you). are they accurate? very likely.

Believers can do as they will, but non-believers should not be discouraged from asking questions.

of course not, i have no problem asking questions; i see the Truth as unnassailable, and therefore questions that only force me to look at the facts and my own beliefs bring me ever closer to the truth. however, unbelievers shouldn't simply use the "well, who really knows, anyway" argument when faced with counter facts/arguments. if you want to engage a believer in debate, fine, but don't simply try to void the entire debate if the believer has something that might be worth looking for. heck, they're not trying to attack you (well, they can get over-eager, my dad calls it "ninjavangilism"); they're trying to share what truth they have.

It is a curious subject and I think it is one worth exploring simply because it is interesting.

:D it is fun, isn't it :D





Albert; good point, as usual:)

[MikeD4o7]

Old Testament, certainly not, it was often written hundreds of years after the events described, having gone through centuries of oral tradition. however, when one gets' to the New Testament then one is dealing with alternately first and second-hand sources, classic historical bases. was it objective? no, the gospels and the epistles were all written with a purpose in mind (several of them come out and tell you). are they accurate? very likely.


It's happened before... A historical figure deified by his biographers within 100 years of his death. I'll research a bit today and see what I can find... but I know there's at least Pythagoras, and I'm willing to bet there are others too.

[cpwill]

not within 100. within 30.

pythagoras the mathematician?

[Redheat]

'There is complete silence in the Gospels concerning the marital status of Jesus. This is sufficiently unusual in ancient Jewry to prompt further inquiry'. The Gospels state that many of the disciples were married. At no point does Jesus himself advocates celibacy. On the contrary, in Matthew 19:4-5 he declares: 'Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one'. Hardly a statement promoting celibacy. According to Judaic customs at the time, it was not only usual but almost mandatory that an adult male be married. If Jesus was not married this fact would have been glaringly conspicuous. The hypothesis of a married Jesus becomes even more tenable by virtue of the title of rabbi which is frequently applied to Jesus in the Gospels. His literacy, his display of knowledge, suggests that he underwent formal rabbinical training and was officially recognized as such. And if Jesus was a rabbi a marriage was not only likely but a certainty. The Jewish Mishnaic Law is quite explicit on the subject. The Law states simply, that an unmarried man may not be a rabbi.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2588/page11.htm

John 21:25) Because a Jewish man being unmarried at the age of Jesus would have been so unusual during the time in which Jesus lived, and because the New Testament does not explicitly say that he had no wife, some have suggested that this itself may be evidence that he was indeed married, otherwise the scriptures would have mentioned that he wasn't and why. As the Rev. Dr. William Phipps, a professor of theology, argued, "If Jesus had been a bachelor ... the Bible would surely contain some record of his being criticized for it." (Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Spring 1969, see also Newsweek, 24 March 1969)

http://messenger.mormonfundamentalism.org/married2.htm

1. The marriage of Jesus Christ is a taboo subject because most Christians regard it as an impious suggestion. They think this way because marriage implies sexuality, and sexuality is defiled in Christian dogma. A married Christ is rejected for theological reasons, not because of historical facts which may disprove the thesis.

2. While the New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that Jesus Christ was married. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria believed that a married Jesus was inconsistent with His role as the Savior of the world, not that marriage would have Him sinful, but rather, that His mission was too demanding and heavenly to allow Him the opportunity for marriage.

3. All later references in the Patristic writings show the Church Fathers following the same pattern: they deny that Jesus was married based upon the supposed silence of the Scriptures and doctrinal problems which were inconsistent with the Church's dogma (e.g. a celibate priesthood, the ritual defilement of seminal emissions, etc.).

4. There was a 2nd Century tradition among various heretical sects which taught that Jesus was married. Clement and others may have been reacting to those movements.

5. Although he didn't say one way or the other, Irenaeus' Doctrine of Recapitulation supports the notion of a married Savior. With a style similar to the Druids, Irenaeus, another 2nd Century leader, taught that Jesus Christ symbolically entered every critical stage of human existence and sanctified it. Since family life, including sexuality, is central to our lives, it seems logically consistent with the mission of a Savior to redeem and sanctify this aspect of our experience, as well.

6. In their dispute with Augustine, the Celtic Pelagians argued that the Atonement of Christ cancelled Original Sin. If Original Sin was, as Augustine argued, a sexually transmitted disease of the soul, then Christ has reversed the process and made it a transmitter of healing, health, and virtue.

7. In keeping with the Creeds of the Church, the offspring of Christ would not have represented a "divine race". The Creeds teach that Christ had two natures: one human and one divine, without mingling and without confusion. Since procreation is a human function, we can reasonably say that the children of Jesus would have been just as human as any other human being.

http://www.grailchurch.org/marriedjesus.htm

[MikeD4o7]

not within 100. within 30.

pythagoras the mathematician?


I'll find the sources and post everything about it tonight, but yeah... the mathematician. He actually had a school where he and his pupils lived in sort of a commune. Some of his students who wrote abut him wrote about him communicating with animals through telepathy and about him raising the dead and healing the sick. I'll get back to you tonight when I find the rest.

[cpwill]

one of the best refutations of the theory i've come across:
http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

here's the part on marriage.

We pick up with more such errors in Chapter 58. As before, Teabing and his implied authority as a historian are responsible for the relevant statements:

“…Jesus as a married man makes infinitely more sense than our standard biblical view of Jesus as a bachelor…Because Jesus was a Jew…the social decorum during that time virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried. According to Jewish custom, celibacy was condemned, and the obligation for a Jewish father was to find a suitable wife for his son. If Jesus were not married, at least one of the Bible’s gospels would have mentioned it and offered some explanation for His unnatural state of bachelorhood.”[26]

All of this is in service of an explanation that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and is taken not from any reputable source on Jewish customs, but from Baigent and Leigh’s material (see below). And is it correct? Once again Teabing would be pulled over by the History Police for this sort of bungle. First, he is committing the classic fallacy of argument from silence – you cannot affirm whatever you want simply because the text doesn’t deny it. Second, the following data from Glenn Miller’s Christian ThinkTank overturns his speculations altogether:[27]

It would have been “normal” for [Jesus] to have been married, but not obligatory for that time (or any other time, for that matter).

1. The rabbinic literature--which is what people sometimes use to argue that celibacy was a capital offense(!)--notes and gives rules for exceptions to rules which were themselves non-binding:

"Celibacy was, in fact, not common, and was disapproved by the rabbis, who taught that a man should marry at eighteen, and that if he passed the age of twenty without taking a wife he transgressed a divine command and incurred God's displeasure. Postponement of marriage was permitted students of the Law that they might concentrate their attention on their studies, free from the cares of support a wife. Cases like that of Simeon be 'Azzai, who never married, were evidently infrequent. He had himself said that a man who did not marry was like one who shed blood, and diminished the likeness of God. One of his colleagues threw up to him that he was better at preaching that at practicing, to which he replied, What shall I do? My soul is enamored of the Law; the population of the world can be kept up by others...It is not to be imagined that pronouncements about the duty of marrying and the age at which people should marry actually regulated practice." [HI:JFCCE:2.119f]…

2. Judaism at the time of Jesus, of course, was a "many splintered thing", with the forerunners of the rabbinics being only one sect among many, one viewpoint (actually, multiple viewpoints!) on a spectrum of viewpoints. Accordingly, there were other groups at the time that either (a) required celibacy; or (b) allowed it.

The Essenes (and the somehow-related Qumran folks) were described by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny as being celibate, but the data is inconclusive as to whether they REQUIRED it or merely ENCOURAGED it. [OT:FAI:130ff]
Philo describes another Jewish sect of both men and women--the Therapeutae --who were celibate in their studies and pursuit of wisdom and the holy life (De Vita Contemplativa 68f).
3. But the dominant class of individuals who were “allowed” or “expected” to be celibate were prophetic figures, throughout Jewish history:

The prophet Jeremiah…
The wilderness prophet Banus:
"More well-known, though still exceptional, would have been the undoubted celibacy of wilderness prophets like Banus (Josephus Life 2.11) and John the Baptist." [DictNTB, s.v. "marriage"]

John the Baptist (and possibly his prototype Elijah]…
Even the 2nd century AD Hasidic miracle-worker, the Galilean rabbi Pinhas ben Yair taught that abstinence was essential to reception of prophetic wisdom and the Holy Spirit. [JJ:102]
4. Although the Rabbinic writers stressed the importance of marriage for procreation, it is noteworthy that this prophetic ideal of celibacy still showed up in the rabbinics:

"Judaism saw nothing wrong in portraying as celibate the great primordial prophet, seer, and lawgiver Moses (though only after the Lord had begun to speak to him). We see this interpretation already beginning to develop in Philo in the 1st century A.D. What is more surprising is that this idea is also reflected in various rabbinic passages. The gist of the tradition is an a fortiori argument. If the Israelites at Sinai had to abstain from women temporarily to prepare for God's brief, once-and- for-all address to them, how much more should Moses be permanently chaste, since God spoke regularly to him (see, e.g., b. Yabb. 87a). The same tradition, but from the viewpoint of the deprived wife, is related in the Sipre on Numbers 12.1 (99). Since the rabbis in general were unsympathetic--not to say hostile--to religious celibacy, the survival of this Moses tradition even in later rabbinic writings argues that the tradition was long-lived and widespread by the time of the rabbis…In view of this "marginal" tradition in early Judaism, it is hardly surprising that the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes has no difficulty in seeing Jesus as celibate and explaining his unusual state by his prophetic call and the reception of the Spirit." [MJ:1.340f]

[cpwill]

So, although it would have been “normal” and expected for a young Jewish man to be married, we have examples of where celibacy was accepted, encouraged, or required. Therefore, Jesus would not have had to have been married…

Miller adds that it is a mistake to misuse Rabbinical literature (as Teabing is likely doing by Brown’s account) to assume that a rabbinic opinion was somehow a law. As the historian E.P. Sanders notes, according to Miller:

“There is also a more general point with regard to calling an opinion a law: once one starts quoting rabbinic statements as laws governing Palestine, one may draw absolutely any portrait of first-century Palestine that one wants. There are thousands and thousands of pages, filled with opinions." [JPB:463]

These “laws” may not be laws, but anything from “a simple description of common practice, which someone finally decided to write down” to a prohibition offered precisely because so many people were doing the opposite. It may be something intended only for the Pharisees, or may be an expression of an ideal that was never followed. As Miller notes, quoting Jewish scholar Ze'ev Safrai: "The public at large did not obey the rabbis. Among the Jews, only a minority followed the rabbis, obeyed their decisions and was influenced by their sermons and moral teachings….The scholar or reader who wishes to do real history must take into account all sorts of possibilities when he or she faces a rabbinic passage; the response, 'everybody did it because the rabbis laid it down' is seldom the correct one."

Therefore, it is false to say that Jesus as a married man “makes infinitely more sense;” it is simply false to claim that the “social decorum” (or anything else) “virtually forbid a Jewish man to be unmarried;” it is false that “celibacy was condemned,” and the silence on the subject in the Gospels is not room for a positive proof whatsoever.

[cpwill]

1. The marriage of Jesus Christ is a taboo subject because most Christians regard it as an impious suggestion. They think this way because marriage implies sexuality, and sexuality is defiled in Christian dogma. A married Christ is rejected for theological reasons, not because of historical facts which may disprove the thesis.

incorrect. church dogma does not view sex as some kind of nasty sinful thing; we view wrong sex (that is, outside of marriage) as a sinful thing. as your own earlier quote points out in Matthew 19, a man shall leave the house of his parents and become joined to his wife, and this is a process both desired and designed by God. Jesus being married wouldnt make him sinful in the least.

2. While the New Testament "appears" to be silent on the subject, it was not until late in the 2nd Century, that any Christian leader denied that Jesus Christ was married.

certainly that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that it coincides with the rise of the gnostic movement, now, would it;). you don't disclaim something unless someone else is claiming it.

Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria believed that a married Jesus was inconsistent with His role as the Savior of the world, not that marriage would have Him sinful, but rather, that His mission was too demanding and heavenly to allow Him the opportunity for marriage.

this makes sense to me. Widows in first century palestine were in a rough spot. to say the least there was no life insurance. your best bet was either to get another husband (quick) or to become a beggar. why would Jesus (who knew he was going to die early on) wish to leave someone whom he loved in that scenario?

3. All later references in the Patristic writings show the Church Fathers following the same pattern: they deny that Jesus was married based upon the supposed silence of the Scriptures and doctrinal problems which were inconsistent with the Church's dogma (e.g. a celibate priesthood, the ritual defilement of seminal emissions, etc.).

:confused: i'm not sure what they mean exactly by "all later", seeing as how the celibate priesthood didn't even become policy until (i believe) the 10th century....

4. There was a 2nd Century tradition among various heretical sects which taught that Jesus was married. Clement and others may have been reacting to those movements.

gnostics. bingo.

5. Although he didn't say one way or the other, Irenaeus' Doctrine of Recapitulation supports the notion of a married Savior.

how? incedentally it was Irenaeus who first identified the four cardinal gospels (the ones we use today, which say nothing of Jesus married) as the ones to be taken as authoritative. why, if he believed in a married christ, would he have chosen four gospels, all of whom ommitted this very important fact?

With a style similar to the Druids, Irenaeus, another 2nd Century leader, taught that Jesus Christ symbolically entered every critical stage of human existence and sanctified it.

and which one leader would that be?;)

6. In their dispute with Augustine, the Celtic Pelagians argued that the Atonement of Christ cancelled Original Sin. If Original Sin was, as Augustine argued, a sexually transmitted disease of the soul, then Christ has reversed the process and made it a transmitter of healing, health, and virtue.

you're basing an argument on a possible Augustinian interpretaion of a Celtic Pelagian claim..... wow; now i have to admit, that does take brass. you'll notice that Augustine is placed in dispute with these individuals? as in, he doesn't agree with them? why, then, would one apply augustines' theology to interpret theirs? i wouldn't try to use the writings of Marx as my instrument for proving how great free-market capitolism was, i'd use sources that agreed with free-market capitolism.

[Redheat]

Let's just cut to the chase.

Da Vinci Code was a work of fiction, with some scholar theories intermingled.

Jesus married? not married? You will find experts on both sides of the issue. Personally I think he was married.

I also think the Church has done it's best to erase Mary and you have to wonder why? She wasn't a prostitute that has been proven.

The bible is a book of man's interpetations of events. It's biased, edited and is hardly the word of God given God had not a thing to do with it. Gospels were hand chosen and Jeus's divinity was voted on, he won his divinity by a narrow margin.

You are free to believe what you want, I have NO problem with how someone gets their spiritiual solace. Just don't tell me something from the bible is true when it's an unprovable. Don't tell me that Christianity is the only true religion, they have way too many skeltons in their closets.

If Christians don't want to go watch the movie, don't. However I'm sick and tired of their wanting it both ways. They don't want anyone interferring with their church's and beliefs but they think it's fine to interfer in politics and every other part of my life. Sorry ain't going to happen.

[swag]

not within 100. within 30.

pythagoras the mathematician?

Yes he was. You've never heard of Pythagoras' theorem? For a right triangle a^2 + b^2 = c^2 where the sides of the triangle are a,b and c.

Pythagoras was the head of a "cult" so to speak. They would gather once in a while and discuss their mathematical findings. But they would not share these findings with anyone unless they were in this cult. They believed, among other things, that the world could be explained with natural numbers and that this was how God worked.

But one day Pythagoras himself proved that sqrt(2) (the square root of 2) was irrational, i.e. it could not be represented as a ration of whole numbers. This of course went against their beliefs that everything was made up of natural numbers. So, as the story goes, they threw Pythagoras off a boat one day because they were so mad about his finding.

[cpwill]

Let's just cut to the chase.

:) alright, i answered your points, but lets' do

Da Vinci Code was a work of fiction, with some scholar theories intermingled.

which claims to be presenting fact; however upon second looking, has extreme "scholarship" issues. dan brown is a believer in this theory, and his own failures to provide accurate historical background sorta disproves his claim at the beginning that what he is describing is true.

Jesus married? not married? You will find experts on both sides of the issue. Personally I think he was married.

you find a mass of experts on the "against" side and extremely few credible experts (read: those with doctorates in New Testament history etc.) on the pro side. check into the qualifications of so called "experts" always.

I also think the Church has done it's best to erase Mary and you have to wonder why? She wasn't a prostitute that has been proven.

eh, the charge that the new testament is an attempt to suppress the role of women has never really held much water with me. the charge that she was or wasn't a prostitute is also unproven either way. however, to somehow claim that the church tried to erase mary, and then put her in the role of being a believer when the disciples didn't believe....... lol, well, let's just say that if the church has tried to erase mary then they've done a really bad job of it.:)

The bible is a book of man's interpetations of events. It's biased, edited and is hardly the word of God given God had not a thing to do with it. Gospels were hand chosen and Jeus's divinity was voted on, he won his divinity by a narrow margin.

you are reffering to the council of nicea? there was a man named Arius there who made a case for Jesus not being divine (although even he, i would point out, used what we today would consider to be scripture to try to prove his case) however the mass of both church traditions and writings were against him, and he lost overwhelmingly. as for the choosing of the gospels themselves, the nicean council was more of a reaction than anything else; they didn't really come up with anything new. only two texts were even really debated; hebrews and revelations, because no one was absolutely positive about their authorship. certainly there is a mass of evidence that these were the books already accepted by the community; including the Muratorian Cannon; from i believe around 190AD, which is basically our New Testament with the exception that it includes two texts, the wisdom of solomon and the revelation of peter, which were later excluded.

You are free to believe what you want, I have NO problem with how someone gets their spiritiual solace. Just don't tell me something from the bible is true when it's an unprovable.

i'll tell you what i know through logic, application of learning, and personal experience. those on the site here can inform you that i do not simply blindly repeat some kind of dogma, but rather respond as i believe. just don't tell me something that isn't in the bible is true when it has no evidence to support it:).

Don't tell me that Christianity is the only true religion, they have way too many skeltons in their closets.

are you reverting to the "christianity can't be true because so many christians are hypocrites" argument here?:)

If Christians don't want to go watch the movie, don't.

eh, i'll probably rent it.

However I'm sick and tired of their wanting it both ways.

:confused:

They don't want anyone interferring with their church's and beliefs but they think it's fine to interfer in politics and every other part of my life. Sorry ain't going to happen.

everyone tries to have their opinion influence politics. it's what our political system is based on.

[Aletheia]

In a book so full of fables and myths, I see no reason why we should accept any of it as objective history.
Josephus did, so did Herodotus and a number of other wise men.

[AgentOrange]

yes. You are absolutely correct.

[Redheat]

which claims to be presenting fact; however upon second looking, has extreme "scholarship" issues. dan brown is a believer in this theory, and his own failures to provide accurate historical background sorta disproves his claim at the beginning that what he is describing is true.

As far as I know it was listed under Fiction. What second look? Who looked? I've heard and read scholars that stand by Dan Brown's theory. Actually it isn't his theory but one he agrees with and used in his book of fiction. Sorry but nothing has disproven him or the others. It's all up to the interpetation, you can't prove it untrue and they can't prove it true. Not getting where you come to the conclusion that your views have been proven.


you find a mass of experts on the "against" side and extremely few credible experts (read: those with doctorates in New Testament history etc.) on the pro side. check into the qualifications of so called "experts" always.

Masses of experts? You mean Theologins? Are we talking experts who are NOT associated with the church? Sorry but I need more then just your opinon or that of priests, ministers or anyone who would hold a stake in their faith being shaken. Again you confuse views with actual proof.

eh, the charge that the new testament is an attempt to suppress the role of women has never really held much water with me. the charge that she was or wasn't a prostitute is also unproven either way. however, to somehow claim that the church tried to erase mary, and then put her in the role of being a believer when the disciples didn't believe....... lol, well, let's just say that if the church has tried to erase mary then they've done a really bad job of it.

Geez there's a shocker. The fact is that off all the things shown to be false by actual writings in history it would be that Mary was NOT a prositutue. The fact that the church has a long history of suppressing woman in the church and in society would suggest clearly that there most certainly was a malice towards woman. Once again actual facts and history fall on the side that the church has reduced Mary and woman in the eyes of their faithful.


i'll tell you what i know through logic, application of learning, and personal experience. those on the site here can inform you that i do not simply blindly repeat some kind of dogma, but rather respond as i believe. just don't tell me something that isn't in the bible is true when it has no evidence to support it.

logic? application of learning? Personal experience? ah did you live during the time of jesus? You are free to have your faith and your beliefs I'm not trying to take those away. However don't take on the role of all knowing and that of the most logical when you have never supported any on your opinions in real fact. I too have logic, and application of learning and personal experience. I however would not be so arrogant as to pretend that MY logic, education and experience made my views surperior to yours. Please have the same respect to me.

you are reffering to the council of nicea? there was a man named Arius there who made a case for Jesus not being divine (although even he, i would point out, used what we today would consider to be scripture to try to prove his case) however the mass of both church traditions and writings were against him, and he lost overwhelmingly. as for the choosing of the gospels themselves, the nicean council was more of a reaction than anything else; they didn't really come up with anything new. only two texts were even really debated; hebrews and revelations, because no one was absolutely positive about their authorship. certainly there is a mass of evidence that these were the books already accepted by the community; including the Muratorian Cannon; from i believe around 190AD, which is basically our New Testament with the exception that it includes two texts, the wisdom of solomon and the revelation of peter, which were later excluded.


It was a VOTE, no other way to see it. Not only that but several religions popular at the time didn't believe jesus to be divine. Were they wrong? Are you going to claim the teachings of one church was right? The bible is based on hand picked gospels, several have been found to have been disallowed. Much in the gospels contridict each other and don't hold true to the traditions and religious cannons of the time. Once again you use YOUR opinons and views as fact, they are not facts sorry. They are but one interpetation, and I don't agree that's all. Doesn't make me right and it doesn't make you right no matter how much you wish it to be.

are you reverting to the "christianity can't be true because so many christians are hypocrites" argument here?

Christanity is full of killing, murder, rape, and silencing of any who would not agree. That's history NO debate, it's fact. It can be true to anyone who wants it to be. Again YOU confuse faith and belief with fact. Please try to keep they separate especially if you are going so far as to base your opinions of MY statements on that. Thanks


everyone tries to have their opinion influence politics. it's what our political system is based on.

Church doesn't belong in politics. Our political system is NOT based on the teachings of christianity. Christanity is NOT the only true religion or form of faith.

[cpwill]

As far as I know it was listed under Fiction.

at the begginning of the book is the claim that all descriptions of the secret societies, documents, artwork, and rituals etc. were true:shrug: he claimed it was a fictional tale built around a real fact.

What second look? Who looked?

well, i did, after i read the book. i checked out the claims, the facts, etc. even wrote a fairly long post here once going through what i felt to be the major evidence (major evidence number one, the story of the discovery of the "documents" contradicts the entire rest of the theory etc. etc.)

I've heard and read scholars that stand by Dan Brown's theory.

there are many "scholars" who do. there are not all that many well-respected scholars, nor will you find more than a bare handful of individuals with PhD's in New Testament History; if indeed you will find any at all.;)

this theory really got started off and made popular by the book "Holy Blood Holy Grail"; which has two authors, Baigent and Leigh. Baigent appears to be a first century palestine expert by virtue of his degree in psychology, and Leigh is described in one location (a website promoting his virtues as a speaker) as a “a writer and university lecturer with a thorough knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology and esoterica,” which seems a roundabout way of saying he has no relevant credentials in the subject whatsoever.

which isn't to say there are not others. Brown names other pieces of "research" in his book, including The Templar Revelation by Picknett and Prince. the credits on their book list them as “writers, researchers, and lecturers on the paranormal, the occult, and historical and religious mysteries.” Their other authorial credits include such masterpieces of critical history as The Stargate Conspiracy: The Truth About Extraterrestrial Life and the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt and The Mammoth Book of UFOs.:rolleyes:

i personally have yet to find a serious academian who backs this claim; do you know any, and if so, would you please send me their arguments and credentials?



actually, Dan Brown acknowledged on the television special that he “became a believer” in the theories The DaVinci Code espouses after allegedly trying to disprove them.

[quote]Sorry but nothing has disproven him or the others.

except for Logic:)

look, i'll return to my main argument number one. the theory Brown presents is that Jesus was married to Mary, who upon his execution fled to southern france where she and her progeny lived and were documented well enough so that a middle ages king would be able to prove his descendancy from them. these documents are then found by a group of knights/monks who dig underneath solomon's temple during the crusades.

firstly the temple in Jesus' day wasn't Solomon's temple, it was Herod's temple. Solomon's temple was destroyed in the 6th century BC by the babylonians.
furthermore, Herod's temple didn't last that long; it was destroyed by the Romans in 67AD during the Jewish War, and has never been rebuilt.
up until then, however, the temple was run by the Sadduccees. these were a religious sect made up of the priests of the temple; who kep their position through birth, and made up a good portion of the sanhedrin. in general they were collaborators with the romans and had a particular hatred for Jesus, as they thought of him as a threat. any descendant of his would have been seen as a similar threat, to be handled in a similar way (the sadducees were the ones who had the Romans crucify Jesus).

so, what we are left with is the theory that mary and her progeny escaped to southern france, were documented for centuries, and that her followers then somehow managed to transport her remains and these documents back through time and space to first century palestine, at which point they then handed over what they would have considered to be holy relics to their worst enemies, who then, instead of destroying them and using them to track down mary; had a sudden change of heart and instead protected what would have been the largest single threat to their power and position by managing to foretell the destruction of the temple and burying them and labeling them such that the romans who rooted through everything wouldn't be able to find them but half a dozen novice explorers centuries later would.

and that's just one part of it.:)

It's all up to the interpetation, you can't prove it untrue and they can't prove it true.

lack of evidence against is not evidence for. however, it's a nice mindset to have when one wishes to think something, as no doubt the link between this theory and the "aliens are coming" theory via our good authors Picknett and Prince demonstrate.

Not getting where you come to the conclusion that your views have been proven.

if the status quo is challenged and the challenge is shown to be false, the status quo wins. it's that simple. i can quote you all the historical reference you want; the one time i really tried you ignored it by pulling the "let's cut to the chase" routine; so since it seems you're not actually willing to engage this issue intellectually perhaps i am wasting my time?;)

[cpwill]

Masses of experts? You mean Theologins? Are we talking experts who are NOT associated with the church? Sorry but I need more then just your opinon or that of priests, ministers or anyone who would hold a stake in their faith being shaken.

:lol: you have a poor picture of christianity indeed if you think this challenges our faith. however, yes, i have theologians, new testament historians, christians and athiests and somewhere in between-ists. i can quote you regular ministers who are well-educated by the bucket, and i can quote you new testament scholars who are considered the top of their field. i'm not giving you simply opinions (although as this is an opinion based site i will give you those at well) but i am backing up my opinions with historical research and scholarship; something you have so far failed to do other than to offer the "many people believe this" argument.

Again you confuse views with actual proof.

no madam, you are confusing the fact that i have views with the idea that that's all i have:)

Geez there's a shocker. The fact is that off all the things shown to be false by actual writings in history it would be that Mary was NOT a prositutue.

i agree, there's no particular reason to believe that mary is the adulteress brought to Jesus for "judgement"; now, that's the most i've ever heard argued, never that it could be "proven". (furthermore, i'm not positive that mary's status as a prostitute has all that relevence to this debate.) however, i am interested. where and how was it proven, and using what literary or historical evidence?

The fact that the church has a long history of suppressing woman in the church and in society would suggest clearly that there most certainly was a malice towards woman. Once again actual facts and history fall on the side that the church has reduced Mary and woman in the eyes of their faithful.

what facts? the facts that as the church later adopted roman-style heirarchal patterns it began to lessen the role of women? the facts that people have used scripture to attempt to justify the repression of women just as they have the repression of people of other races, the repression of jews, the repression of other sects???
yeah, the church has a long history of being used to try to confirm societie's biases, how does this have anything to do with first century palestine?

logic?

logically, the idea of a group of middle-age french farmers constructing a time machine for the transport of documents and bones does not make much sense:)

application of learning?

as best i can, yes.

Personal experience? ah did you live during the time of jesus?

as a matter of fact, i do;)
but don't worry, you do to:)

[cpwill]

you have never supported any on your opinions in real fact.

:lol: in response to your claim, i posted an entire list of reasons why, historically, Jesus was not required by his religion to be married and you ignored every one of them.;) i posted clarification on the council of nicea; and so far you've ignored that. i've pointed to earlier cannons, again you seem to be hoping that if you ignore them they'll go away.:) i think, madam, that this particular charge falls flat on it's face.;)

I too have logic, and application of learning and personal experience. I however would not be so arrogant as to pretend that MY logic, education and experience made my views surperior to yours.

:confused: i don't. that's why i'm in this debate. if i considered you an idiot (which i do not) then what would be the point; what could i possibly learn, possibly gain by debating with you?

It was a VOTE, no other way to see it.

that's correct. and Arius did about as well as the Green Party:)

Not only that but several religions popular at the time didn't believe jesus to be divine.

judaism? islam wasn't around at the time. i suppose you could claim that since christianity was the only religion around that did claim Jesus was divine that all other religions at the time "didn't believe Jesus to be divine." what point does this possibly make? that's like saying that muhhammed can't be right because Taoists don't believe him.

Were they wrong?

in my opinion?

[cpwill]

Are you going to claim the teachings of one church was right?

depends what you mean by "one church", and depends on what you mean by "right".

The bible is based on hand picked gospels,

the gospels were picked based on which ones helped the church the most, and which ones were from authorship that was most genuine. Bishop Irenaeus a century after Christ was the first that we have on record as picking matthew mark luke and john and no others as the ones considered to be "most apostolic"; he had alot of flowery language (they are the four corners of the earth, the four cardinal directions, the four winds, etc. etc. etc.) about their praises. in the later part of his century, the marcion cannon was declared (also as a reaction to a popular countermovement; remember, cannons, creeds, etc. are not typically proactive, but rather reactive; the council of Nicea was a reaction, it wasn't making anything up, but rather clarifying what christains already believed.) which virtually mirrored the current cannon with the exception of two books that were later excluded... but, i am repeating myself.

several have been found to have been disallowed.

which ones in particular are you reffering to? Thomas? Philip? Gnostic Gospels? Barnabas?

Much in the gospels contridict each other

in details, often yes. after all, it's different people's memory of the event, decades down the road. they can be excused if they don't all match perfectly;)

and don't hold true to the traditions and religious cannons of the time.

wha? A) explain what you mean by this; what traditions and religious cannons are you reffering to B) show how the gospels did not hold true to the traditions/religous cannons of the time

Once again you use YOUR opinons and views as fact

:rolleyes: i think i've dealt with this charge. honestly, do you basically want me to put down every scrap of information i can remember or find which disproves the davinci code? you're not going to want to read it.

Christanity is full of killing, murder, rape, and silencing of any who would not agree. That's history NO debate, it's fact.

:confused: i'm not debating this. i'm saying it's a silly reason to reject the church in particular and the theory and philosophy behind christianity in general:). humanity is full of killing, murder, rape, and silencing of any who would not agree. all this manages to do is successfully claim that christians are (drumroll please)................ members of the HUMAN SPECIES:clap::clap::clap: ;):)

Church doesn't belong in politics. Our political system is NOT based on the teachings of christianity.

eh, depends on which founding father you listen to;)
yes, i think that the top rungs of the church and state do not belong to the same people. however, what you are asking me to do is to pretend that my morals should not have any effect on my politics; and quite frankly, i would hope that the two would be indistinguishable.

Christanity is NOT the only true religion or form of faith.

hm.. i suppose it depends on what you mean by "true"

[DMann]

Holy Blood, Holy Grail


good conspiracy stuff. i love that book. the premise is that jesus moved to france. LOL :D :D :D

[cpwill]

oh yeah, the conspiracy theories themselves are fun, i used to collect them over at pravda.

i had two favorites, both about 9.11; one of which claimd that there was no 9.11 and that the entire city of new york had pulled a massive hoax on the rest of us, and another that tried to claim that bush and the mossad pulled it off using guided airplanes that had been subsituted for the real ones (which were landed quietly elsewhere and their passengers told to keep mum) as a trade-off; with bush then using it as an excuse to conquer the middle east and give it to israel, who in turn would supply 100 years free oil, which bush thought would be enough time for the Second Coming Of Christ to occur, which would naturally lead to a thousand year persecution of athiests, liberals, and basically anyone who is not a neocon..... it went on:D

[DMann]

you all might learn something here:


http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Propaganda_techniques


tell me if you see some of these techniques being used here

[cpwill]

hmmm... interestin site.


what did you spot?

[DMann]

I'd have to be specific about who and what...thereby creating a possible flame war....so, it's up to y'all to see if you, or someone else uses these propaganda techniques to get their point across. then the question becomes, why.

[cpwill]

lol, perhaps because they work?:D

the problem as i see it, is that it lists nearly every way to form a counter argument; i would say that these guys are a bit overeager to claim somethin as "propaganda"; i suppose for me propaganda always has a ring of non-truthfullness to it.

:shrug:

[DMann]

well, it's certainly, for some people, a matter of degrees. i don't relax like that.

[cpwill]

?relax like what?

[DMann]

"relax" like...i'm too suspicious of everyones motives to do that.
i think, you, sometimes, have a perspective that expects everyone to play fair . I want you to be tougher than that. people really have agendas...almost everyone.

[cpwill]

lol, i come off as naive?

[DMann]

I'm a lefty. and if you want to know the truth...i am MORE suspicious of the left than the right. the right? you can see right through them. the left are a bit more insidious. it's just my personal belief.

[cpwill]

that's funny, i thought it was supposed to be all those young liberals who were naive, and all those crusty old conservatives who were supposed to be suspicious and jaded....


lol, we're not doing a very good job of fufilling our roles, are we?

[DMann]

I'[m over 40 . And no, you come off as a person who wants to learn and do the right thing. sometimes you come off as someone who took a strong dose of the jesus cool aid....we have already discussed that. it's fine with me. I'm not criticizing. I love you dude. you are alright with me. Almost like an adopted son. I except you for who you are.

[cpwill]

lol, if i were fox, i would dig into you about the underlying meanings behind your choice of the word "except" instead of "accept";), however, i think i'm just going to put up a winky face instead;).

hmmm.... here i thought i was coming off as the cool, well-read professional apologist; it appears my master plan isn't workin quite as well as hoped......:cool:

i'm not sure if i consider you an "adoptive dad" figure (i've got an awesome dad, he sets a pretty high standard) but i sure as hell consider you a friend:D

besides, i'm 21. if i was your kid, then you'd have been havin kids way too young, and this way you don't have to discipline me or fork over money for my extraordinarily expensive college;):lol:

however, yes, we do appear to both fail Mr Churchill's test, dont we?

[DMann]

lol, if i were fox, i would dig into you about the underlying meanings behind your choice of the word "except" instead of "accept", however, i think i'm just going to put up a winky face instead.


thanks...picky little ****

hmmm.... here i thought i was coming off as the cool, well-read professional apologist; it appears my master plan isn't workin quite as well as hoped......

you are well read...for a 20 year old...move beyond the bible...have you read any buddha, krsna, underground poetry, conceptual writing, "ON THE ROAD" , "HOWL" , Flowers of Evil, Bukowski. Lenin, Have you ever listened to an entire PJ harvey album?
don't assume you've been there until you have.


i'm not sure if i consider you an "adoptive dad" figure (i've got an awesome dad, he sets a pretty high standard) but i sure as hell consider you a friend

i can accept that. it was a figure of speach

besides, i'm 21. if i was your kid, then you'd have been havin kids way too young, and this way you don't have to discipline me or fork over money for my extraordinarily expensive college


my son, that died, would be 22 this year

however, yes, we do appear to both fail Mr Churchill's test, dont we?

I need some clarity on that one

[cpwill]

thanks...picky little ****

:D

you are well read...for a 20 year old...move beyond the bible...have you read any buddha, krsna, underground poetry, conceptual writing, "ON THE ROAD" , "HOWL" , Flowers of Evil, Bukowski. Lenin, Have you ever listened to an entire PJ harvey album?
don't assume you've been there until you have.

marxism (with Engles thrown in), lenninism, stalinism(what very little he "added" to theory) trotskyism, maoism, confucionism, legalism, daoism, buddhism, shintoism, the regular texts for western civ classes (US constitution, Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc), and this summer i'm hoping to get into some of the greek guys, 'cause everyone always quotes them and it'd be nice to be able to recognize it..... and that's about it. what's the rest of the stuff you listed?

I need some clarity on that one

Winston Churchill: If you're not a liberal by the time you're twenty, then you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're fourty then you have no head.

my son, that died, would be 22 this year

oh, dude. wow. i don't even know what to say man.

[DMann]

what's the rest of the stuff you listed?

arty stuff...for balance

you don't have to say anything about my son. he died when he was three months old. Arion Morgan Lestat Mann. He would have been 22 this month. it was few weeks ago...about the time i started acting weird on the board. i only see that now. but, it coincides....anniversary....unhappy one

[cpwill]

arty stuff? what kinda arty stuff?


and even if i don't have to say anything, i still feel sympathy for you. i am sorry, man.

[cpwill]

oh reeeeeedheeeeeaaat.......:devil:

where aaaaaarrreeee youuuuuuuu????

come out come out wherever you arrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee......:D

[cpwill]

still waiting for those facts, redheat....

[barciad]

The bloke who leant it to me is a Catholic and said it was a good book, which it is. It seems to be the same lot who think that Harry Potter promotes satanism.

[cpwill]

?? i liked both books, i think those who think that "harry potter promotes satanism" is, at best, an extremely small fragment of society. i live in the heart of the conservative religious area of the US, and i can't offhand think of so much as one person i know who is of that opinion....

eh:shrug: i still like "Angels and Demons" better (DaVinci Code's prequel)

[Redheat]

still waiting for those facts, redheat....

What facts do you feel you have been deprived of?

[cpwill]

evidence for your argument in general would be nice, but i'd also be interested in the method for "proving" historically and literarily that mary was not a prostitute, as well as the names and qualifications of "all those scholars" you reffered to.

[Redheat]

evidence for your argument in general would be nice, but i'd also be interested in the method for "proving" historically and literarily that mary was not a prostitute, as well as the names and qualifications of "all those scholars" you reffered to.


I've said it many times that NEITHER of us can prove our claims. You can't prove anything in the bible and I can't prove contridictions. I thought that was settled.

As far as the scholar etc.. may I suggest you do a search and seek them yourself. I know what I've heard and read and I believe the painting of her being a prostitute was wrong historically and morally. However you are free to think what you want. If you are really interested in the facts of this perception being debunked I'd suggest you do some of your own research. It would appear nothing I provide fits your standards plus I don't think my listing name after name will convince you.

[cpwill]

well then call me curious:)

[cpwill]

err, alo?

[cpwill]

not even one?

[MikeD4o7]

evidence for your argument in general would be nice, but i'd also be interested in the method for "proving" historically and literarily that mary was not a prostitute, as well as the names and qualifications of "all those scholars" you reffered to.


Was there anything i the NT that definitely said she was a prostitute? There may have been... but I honestly can't think of anything.

[cpwill]

there is nothing in the New Testament documents that claim she was a prostitute, there is nothing that describes her vocation or whether she was married at all, to my knowledge.

the idea that she was a prostitute comes from church tradition; redheat claimed it'd been "proven" that she wasn't, i was curious and interested in how folks had gone about "proving" it.

so far, no answer.:rolleyes::)

[cpwill]

dumdedumdedum (twiddles thumbs, still waiting)

[MikeD4o7]

there is nothing in the New Testament documents that claim she was a prostitute, there is nothing that describes her vocation or whether she was married at all, to my knowledge.

the idea that she was a prostitute comes from church tradition; redheat claimed it'd been "proven" that she wasn't, i was curious and interested in how folks had gone about "proving" it.

so far, no answer.


Ah ok... well wouldn't it be reasonable to say though that the claim that she was a prostitute has been proven to be dubious? Didn't the subject of her being a prostitute not even come up until somewhere around the 6th or 7th century?

[cpwill]

:shrug:honestly, i haven't searched it's early-church-tradition origins; that's why i was interested in hearing Redheats academic argument on the matter.

[MikeD4o7]

I'm no expert either on this... but for some reason I think I read somewhere that the tradition didn't arise until somewhere in the 600's. Either way the question is going to remain unanswered. There's no way to prove that she was or that she wasn't a prostitute. Whenever church tradition is involved, I think it always comes down to speculation... possibly educated guesses if you can find the motivations of those who started the traditions.

[cpwill]

sometimes thats just the case.:shrug: