There was an article about the Da Vinci Code movie in the RedEye this morning, by Katie McCollow. I just wanted to quote this part:
quote:I jest, but to many, it's no laughing matter. Such is the case with my parents. They're deeply devout Catholoics, and the premise of the movie offends them.
We were discussing it the other night, and my dad voiced his concern that the movie might lead people to actually believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
I replied, "That's ridiculous. They didn't need a piece of paper to prove they were in love.
Jokes like that send my mom straight for the candles.
Anyway, it made me laugh out loud on the L, which is kind of embarrassing, but I thought I'd pass it on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I honestly don't see what the problem with thinking that Jesus might have been married to Mary Magdalene would be. To me, the people who find this idea so offensive are likely betraying their own hangups.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's silly. If their religion claims he wasn't, then of course it's offensive to them. Duh.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's totally ridiculous.
Everyone knows that Jesus was married to Judas. That's why he betrayed him with a Kiss.
Mary was just a homewrecker.
(Please don't hurt me, Christians! It was just a joke!)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The movie should be banned. I find it highly offensive. The very fact that it says that there is evidence that Jesus not only existed, but was somehow holy, shows how Dan Brown is pushing his Christian agenda on all of us.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually, what I find most offensive, unChristian, and totally without viable proof, is that the decendants of Jesus and Mary are French.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What about the continual portrayal of albino monks as bad guys? I think it's an outrage to feed the anti-albino stereotypes that exist out there. Why can't the albino be the hero?
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Actually, what I find most offensive, unChristian, and totally without viable proof, is that the decendants of Jesus and Mary are French.
Hehe. That one made my day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I honestly don't see what the problem with thinking that Jesus might have been married to Mary Magdalene would be. To me, the people who find this idea so offensive are likely betraying their own hangups.
I think this statement reveals a different kind of hangup entirely. Is it possible not to 'honestly' see what the problem is? Despite appearances, I'm not accusing you of lying, Mr. Squicky. But your statement does lead me to think you're blithely dismissing the reverence many people hold for Christ as trivial.
Yes, yes, I know there are many more important things to learn and know about Christ than his marital status. But that does not mean one cannot be reasonably offended at slandering both Him and lots of Christian churches throughout the millenia without it being a 'hangup'.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think you're all taking the idea of the film much to seriously. In the immortal words of my father, "It's fiction for Christ's sake!"
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I've heard that for Jewish teachers of the time period to be taken seriously, they needed to be married, hence the suggestion that Jesus must have been married in order for his teachings to have been followed.
Any historians or Jewish rabbis who can confirm or deny?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*watches the thread teeter on the brink of serious discussion*
*takes bets*
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
MC- I don't know that for sure. But one can assume that since the family was an important part of life back then that it might be. You can't really have a legitimate male heir if you're not married, can you?
So, it would indeed make sense that, for Jesus to be taken seriously, he might have needed to be married. OR, at least, he may have needed to act like he was married to create an illusion that he was.
Perhaps that is why the reputation of Mary Magdalene is so bad. Because the disciples didn't agree that he'd chosen a fitting women to be his spouse.
I've heard a number of people call someone else's girlfriend a whore before.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand how it would be slander. Being married isn't a bad thing, is it?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Because some people believe that Jesus is God and that god is above the necesities of carnal existence. I realize how alien this concept would naturally be to a Mormon or to many other religions, but it is fairly simple.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Because some people believe that Jesus is God and that god is above the necesities of carnal existence. I realize how alien this concept would naturally be to a Mormon or to many other religions, but it is fairly simple.
I'm Christian, but I seem to think that just because he had the ability to resist such things does not mean he exercised it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I agree, Steve, and I'm not a Christian. It is possible that you misunderstood me. I just meant that it is fairly simple to undertsand why some Christians would feel that way. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I don't have the ability to imagine why someone else might agree with it, or vice versa. So, claiming I couldn't understand it would be disingenuous of me (though possibly not on the part of others who so claim).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Because some people believe that Jesus is God and that god is above the necesities of carnal existence.
Jesus was also fully human. And married sex (which I'm assuming you mean by the necessities of carnal existence), besides being but one of the multitude of aspects of marriage, is not dirty or degrading. It's a holy, uplifting thing, both in the Jewish tradition that Jesus lived and in the Christian theology that has developed since. It's not a necessity that is forced on us (well, except if you ask St. Paul), but rather a sacred thing we choose to do.
The only way I could see people seeing Jesus being married as offensive is if they viewed some aspect of that marriage, most likely the sex, as somehow lowering him. Doctrinally, married sex would not do this, so I'm laying it on the hangup that all sex is dirty.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't disagree with you. I just happen to think that the inability to understand another person's point of veiw is, at best, a tremendous failure of imagination.
*hangs plants from the eyebolts in her ceiling*
No sexual hang ups here. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I thought what I was doing was explicating their point of view, not failing to understand it.
Looking at it, I think my phrasing was unclear. When I said I don't see why this would be a problem, I meant it from an objective standpoint that is taking into account the exalted nature of married sex in the relevant theologies. Obviously I understand that people who think that all sex is dirty are going to be offended when told that their deity was in a relationship that almost definitely involved sex.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Again, I don't disagree with your arguments, or, really, care one way or the other. *shrug*
I do think that if a person believes they understand something, they usually don't say that they don't. Unless maybe they want to argue (which I don't).
For example, I could say that I'm baffled by people who seem so determined to worship deities with penises. I'm not really baffled, though. Maybe I think it's illogical, and maybe I have good reasons to support that opinion.
But if I did say that, I would actually be stirring the poo. Which I have no intention of doing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I do think that if a person believes they understand something, they usually don't say that they don't. Unless maybe they want to argue (which I don't).
I never said I didn't understand it. I said I honestly didn't see the problem, which, since apparently my last post didn't clear this up, I did not intend as saying "I just don't get these people." but rather as "I don't see any doctrinal or objective problem with this."
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*snerfle*
Dude, I'm sorry. I was just yanking your chain, trying to be hyperliteral. That's all.
I think we agree, more or less (except all that god stuff ) Seriously, I was just trying to be funny. At first I thought you were playing along, but now I see you thought I was really trying to bust your chops. *wince* It's a joke thread! I'm sorry.
It's just late and I was messing around. No hard feelings?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sure, no worries.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It's past my bedtime. I'm punchy. Like that obnoxious drunk who thinks you dig him. *wince*
Sorry.
I think the first book, the one before the Code, was actually intended to hack off the Catholics. Kind of left the albinos alone, though.
*pats neighborhood albinos*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Like that obnoxious drunk who thinks you dig him.
Hey, you lay off Chuck. Some of us are just grateful for the attention.
[ May 19, 2006, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I've heard a number of people call someone else's girlfriend a whore before.
Where in the Bible does it directly say that Mary Magdalene was a whore?
-pH
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
It doesn't. That's a post-biblical tradition.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Exactly.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Actually, what I find most offensive, unChristian, and totally without viable proof, is that the decendants of Jesus and Mary are French.
Here here!
Hoi Hoi Hoi Hoi
(French laughter, of course)
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Something must be wrong with me because I innitially read the thread title as "Furry Da Vinci Line" and thus avoided it like the plague (even though I was curious as to what anything in the Da Vinci Code had to do with furries).
I didn't realize my error until I came back just now.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I've heard that for Jewish teachers of the time period to be taken seriously, they needed to be married, hence the suggestion that Jesus must have been married in order for his teachings to have been followed.
Any historians or Jewish rabbis who can confirm or deny?
It was generally the case, though there were exceptions. They were notable, however. It didn't pass without comment.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: MC- I don't know that for sure. But one can assume that since the family was an important part of life back then that it might be. You can't really have a legitimate male heir if you're not married, can you?
Perhaps, but that wasn't the reason. One reason is that men are a lot more easily distracted by women if they aren't settled down. Another is that, as you say, the family is (and was) the center of Jewish life. It's the fundamental social assumption of the Torah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celaeno: Something must be wrong with me because I innitially read the thread title as "Furry Da Vinci Line" and thus avoided it like the plague (even though I was curious as to what anything in the Da Vinci Code had to do with furries).
I didn't realize my error until I came back just now.
Sounds like a dobie waiting to happen...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Perhaps it is not only the married thing. Perhaps it is the assertion that instead of dying on the cross and atoning for all mankind, Jesus ran off to France.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The problem I have with the idea that Jesus was married doesn't have much to do with sex. It has more to do with the idea of him having a wife. I believe that I am more important to my husband than any other person on this earth, and he is more important to me than any other person on earth. I don't like the idea that Jesus was married because that would raise favoritism issues, and He's supposed to be the savior of us all--no special treatment. And if she wasn't more important to him, than it's not really fair to marry her.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: The problem I have with the idea that Jesus was married doesn't have much to do with sex. It has more to do with the idea of him having a wife. I believe that I am more important to my husband than any other person on this earth, and he is more important to me than any other person on earth. I don't like the idea that Jesus was married because that would raise favoritism issues, and He's supposed to be the savior of us all--no special treatment. And if she wasn't more important to him, than it's not really fair to marry her.
Well Christians believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God, correct? What if the human loved the wife, but the God part had no favorites?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Jesus didn't have a multiple-personality disorder. If He was married, then He was married. All parts.
There aren't actions that are attributable only to his human side or his God side. He was both human and God at the same time, there is no half of him does this and half does the other.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Nah. Still a raw deal for Mary.
"Gee, Mary, I love you and all, but I've gotta go die for the sins of all mankind, leaving you to fend for yourself. Sorry."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wouldn't have any problem with Jesus being married (but then, I think God is married), but I think that Christianity is undercut completely if the cross and the atonement never happened.
Retiring to France = No atonement, no central act of Christianity. The Da Vinci Code doesn't need the married angle to deny Christ's divinity.
I think it's a bit of fluff, though, and not really worried. If Christianity can survive Who Is This God Person Anyway, it can survive The Da Vinci Code.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I tuned into Hatrack today specifically to ask this question, and here it is on the front page. I really don't (or didn't) understand the problem with believing Jesus might have been married; I don't understand how that could diminish Him or "disprove Christianity". Thanks, y'all, for shedding a little light on the subject.
I'm in the "He was fully God and fully man" camp, so he would (in this mortal life) do all the things a man would do (except sin, of course). I don't have a problem with the idea of a married Jesus; I don't see how it could take away from His divinity. But when I've discussed this with other Christians before, they are shocked and can't even put a coherent thought together, as if I've just suggested Jesus was a murderer or something.
But I do understand Katarain's concern that he might "play favorites". At least that makes a little bit of sense.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, I am pleased to at least make a little bit of sense. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Because some people believe that Jesus is God and that god is above the necesities of carnal existence.
Jesus was also fully human. And married sex (which I'm assuming you mean by the necessities of carnal existence), besides being but one of the multitude of aspects of marriage, is not dirty or degrading. It's a holy, uplifting thing, both in the Jewish tradition that Jesus lived and in the Christian theology that has developed since. It's not a necessity that is forced on us (well, except if you ask St. Paul), but rather a sacred thing we choose to do.
The only way I could see people seeing Jesus being married as offensive is if they viewed some aspect of that marriage, most likely the sex, as somehow lowering him. Doctrinally, married sex would not do this, so I'm laying it on the hangup that all sex is dirty.
Married sex is, in fact, commanded (for those who have married, that is).
I don't find the concept of Jesus being married offensive. Any offensiveness for me (and it's not much, since this is a rather silly piece of fiction*) stems from the accusation that the Church would kill to keep it a secret.
Or, as Kat put it, "I think it's a bit of fluff, though, and not really worried. If Christianity can survive Who Is This God Person Anyway, it can survive The Da Vinci Code."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I can see where the Catholic church is coming from from that point of view Dagonee. Anytime you start talking about secret organizations conspiring against the rest of the world, all sorts of rumors and myths can start up. The Elders of Zion ring a bell in my mind as something similar.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I think the Catholic Church would do a better service to itself if it ignored the Divinci Code instead of give it free press.
I have never been a fan of the Catholic Church. I was raised Mormon and the Catholic Church was simply not true in my mind. I still don't think it is the "True Church," but lately I have grown to appreciate it.
I was never one for Popes or Prophets and was dismissive of the Pope in my ignorance.
Recently my wife checked out Karol at the library. If you want a full review with spoilers from the director of the Office for Film & Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, you can read it here.
I was very touched and moved. I can see why so many people want to make the last Pope a Saint. We cried as we watched it. It gave me a renewed faith in the human spirit. I never knew Pope John Paul the II was really named Karol. I knew nothing of his life--except that the Russians tried to assassinate him and that the church has a lot of fancy pomp (in my mind).
If the movie is only half accurate, then Karol truly was a great man who embodied a great philosophy and love for life. If the Catholic Church would focus more on movies like Karol instead of hack novels like the Divinci Code, I think more people would stay focused on Christ-like Love and not conspiracy theories.
EDIT: It helps that Ennio Morricone did the soundtrack! I love his work. My wife got the movie not knowing it was about the Pope. I watched it for the soundtrack. We both loved the movie.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think it would totally suck to be married to God. I never could stand to date guys whose job/calling was more important to them than I was. *shrug* I admit I'm selfish.
Edit: Also, I think lem is right, and not just about the Catholic Church. There are few religions that wouldn't benefit from emphasizing the positives rather than stroking out over the negatives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*instantly feels guilty for the slightly-dirty thought that popped into her head*
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I was going to say "going apoplectic" but I can't spell it. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Add me to the list of Catholics who would not be at all bothered if Jesus had been married. I kind of hope He was, actually. I would ike to think that He had that particular joy.
As for carnal necessities - well, we know He ate and drank.
And as for "playing favorites", He did choose disciples.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Doesn't it say in the bible that Judas was his favorite desciple? His Best Bud? Which is why the betrayal was all the more awful?
(or am I mis-remembering a book I haven't read in 20 years?)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I believe you are remembering references to John as the beloved disciple.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The idea that Judas was Jesus' best friend is a bit of post-Biblical apocrypha. It makes for a better and edgier story, so many people prefer that version.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ah, I think both you guys are right.
Senile Pix
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, I don't really think that finding out for certain that Jesus was married on earth would completely shatter my faith, my problem with the claim is that there doesn't really seem to be any real evidence for it.
I see nothing in the Bible that remotely hints that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I wonder if he were, why he made no provision to care for her after his death like he did for his mother. I wonder why, if he were married to her, his bride is referred to as being the church, and his earthly marriage to her is not mentioned. And, I'm not going to buy in to a hasty generalization that just because the majority of Jews were married, it naturally follows that Christ must have been.
While it would not crush me to believe that Christ was married, I honestly think his mission when he came to earth was not about starting a family, but rather getting about his Father's work - the atonement.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Doesn't it say in the bible that Judas was his favorite desciple? His Best Bud? Which is why the betrayal was all the more awful?
(or am I mis-remembering a book I haven't read in 20 years?)
I think that may have been I, Judas.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Doesn't it say in the bible that Judas was his favorite desciple? His Best Bud? Which is why the betrayal was all the more awful?
(or am I mis-remembering a book I haven't read in 20 years?)
I think that may have been I, Judas.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa: Don't think so =) I've never read that
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of think the bible has been altered a few times, but that's just me. It would be nice to get my hands on an unedited version... But there are a few legends floating around according to Tori Amos from better sources. I just know that movie will be dippy. Hollywood just cannot help making dippy movies.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What is the Apocrypha?
And why do Catholics have it in the Bible?
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Probably extra stuff in the bible. Makes me think of DVD extras, things that were cut out.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What is the Apocrypha?
And why do Catholics have it in the Bible?
The Apocrypha are several sections of the Bible removed for any number of reasons.
I do not know for certain why the Catholic Bible contains some (but not all) of the Apocrypha.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:What is the Apocrypha?
And why do Catholics have it in the Bible?
The Apocrypha are several sections of the Bible removed for any number of reasons.
I do not know for certain why the Catholic Bible contains some (but not all) of the Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha are books that didn't make it into the canon. That doesn't mean that they were in the canon and then removed, as you're implying.
There are also books known as Pseudepigrapha, which, as their name suggests, are books that were purportedly written by biblical characters, but obviously were not.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There are two accounts of a woman giving Jesus ointment in the Gospels. In one story it is Mary Magdalene, in the other it is the adultress.
Not that I am more or less comfortable with Jesus being married to an adulteress if he was married. His forgiveness is absolute.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:I believe you are remembering references to John as the beloved disciple.
Not exactly. The "disciple whom Jesus loved" only shows up in the fourth gospel but is never named. Tradition makes the connection between John and beloved disciple.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The Apocrypha are books that didn't make it into the canon. That doesn't mean that they were in the canon and then removed, as you're implying.
You're right, although my description certainly does apply to several of the books.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: There are two accounts of a woman giving Jesus ointment in the Gospels. In one story it is Mary Magdalene, in the other it is the adultress.
Not that I am more or less comfortable with Jesus being married to an adulteress if he was married. His forgiveness is absolute.
Three. In two accounts (Matthew and Mark)it is an unnamed woman; in the third (John) is is Mary of Bethany (Martha's sister).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:The Apocrypha are books that didn't make it into the canon. That doesn't mean that they were in the canon and then removed, as you're implying.
You're right, although my description certainly does apply to several of the books.
Depends on which canon you refer to. I don't think there were any books that were in the Jewish canon and then later removed.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Why should Jesus need to provide for Mary Magdelene? It was she who financed his ministry so it was quite the other way around. She and her Bethany group were substantial women. The one fact I see missing in all the evidence is the conection to John the Baptist, with the John Gesture being very important to the line of supposition and appearing in the Last Supper in a self portrait of Di Vinci.
BC
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Meh. There are many reasons why planning on dying shortly after marrying someone is a raw deal for the someone in question, besides money. I mean, not that I care, really. If she was cool with it, then whatever. There are a lot of women in the world whose choices seem kind of dumb to me (only in that I don't see the appeal.)
From my perspective, personally, I would not want to be married to anyone with a mission that was more important to them than me and our family. I realize that is not a veiw shared by everyone, obviously. Like that guy who climbed MT Everest (and died there) when his wife was seven months pregnant? I'd be totally kicking myself for hooking up with THAT guy, but his wife probably loved him, in part, because he was a risk-taker and likely to let his passion for adventure superceed his responsibility.
So, while I wouldn't want to marry a man I knew was going to sacrifice himself for all mankind in a couple of years, It doesn't bother me that someone else might.
I'm kind of speaking to this hypothetically, because I find it more likely that Jesus was just a really great man than a deity, but if he was a deity and began a family knowing he was going to abandon them... that would suck.
Severely edited for clarity.
[ May 20, 2006, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
When my old youth pastor proposed to his (now) wife, he asked her first if it was okay that he would always love God more than her, and that God would always take priority over her in his life.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I would have responded that of course God should always take priority, but that doesn't mean that his job would always take priority.
Who am I kidding? I wouldn't have been dating the guy. It sounds like a brilliant way to make sure that he's always in control of the important decisions in the relationship, because God is leading him and God is more important. I could just be cynical and he could be a wonderful man and they could have a wonderful relationsip. But that sounds like a huge old red flag to me. Not saying that God shouldn't be the most important thing in someone's life. Just saying there seems to me a difference between saying that and explicitly saying God will always take priority over you.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This is the big reason it sucked dating the pre-seminary boys. If a guy had asked me that question... I don't know what I'd say, and at one time I would probably have said "okay." But, being the person that I am now, the way it plays out in my imagination seems to involve me saying, "Kneel down and kiss my boot" at some point. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That would be cool with me if my girlfriend said that God would always come before me, as long as she's cool with my computer always coming before her. Come on, fair is fair. If one person gets a "higher power", the other person does too.
Maybe I'll switch from computer to cake. So many choices.
Maybe that's why Jesus and Mary weren't married. Jesus said, "I'm God baby." and Mary said, "I love Cake!"
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: While it would not crush me to believe that Christ was married, I honestly think his mission when he came to earth was not about starting a family, but rather getting about his Father's work - the atonement.
This is what I think too.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
While it wouldn't crush me to find out that Jesus was married, I'm highly suspicious of "research" that traces his decendents to a particular royal family who happened to be funding the research.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Olivet: Judas sold him for a reason. I believe the is a book of the Gospel of Judas, which I haven't had time to look at. In this book they talk about how Judas was doing Jesus a favor by selling him and getting him on with his 'eternal' quest.
I would think that if Love is such a high priority for Jesus as it seems, that he would have had a wife, and children. This idea has never bothered me.
ctm: Did Jesus go around letting everyone know what his work was? This also may bring other light to the words "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
I find that as was said in the movie, Anything that allows you to gain more faith is a good thing. Jesus tried to teach in many ways for many different people.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
raventh1, I believe that the Gospel of Judas is a gnostic text. It is very much not in line with mainstream Christianity.
quote:Perhaps it is not only the married thing. Perhaps it is the assertion that instead of dying on the cross and atoning for all mankind, Jesus ran off to France.
I only saw the movie, so maybe what you're saying came from the book, but in the film it says that Mary was pregnant at the crucifixion and that after Jesus died she went to France.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: It sounds like a brilliant way to make sure that he's always in control of the important decisions in the relationship, because God is leading him and God is more important.
Yeah...and he's the minister, so even if she says that God is leading him somewhere, his God-feelings take precedence.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Raventh1: The who what now? I never said anything about Judas. That may have been Pixiest you were talking to. (I still think it's a selfish bastard who'd start a family knowing he was going to crap out on them, not that I care whether or not any figure of religious significance (to whoever) did so.)
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Olivet: I apparently didn't read the second page... Sorry for the confusion.
I was replying to this: "Gee, Mary, I love you and all, but I've gotta go die for the sins of all mankind, leaving you to fend for yourself. Sorry."
Amanecer: The Da Vinci Code isn't gospel either; I'm merely suggesting how things could work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wouldn't mind someone loving and wishing to obey God before me, but my religion says that his primary method of following God would be by being a great husband and father, so that works out for everyone.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Right. It's him saying, "now you know I'm always going to put God before you, right?" that's a possible warning sign. (Depending on how he said it, context of the discussion, etc.) Possibly he's a sincere, devout guy who just wants to make sure she knows that he can't love her more than God. But possibly he has an ego problem and is going to confuse his own plans with God and use the God card to trump her opinions. (Kind of like the "God told me to marry you," which I think you have some experience with, neh? )
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But possibly he has an ego problem and is going to confuse his own plans with God and use the God card to trump her opinions. (Kind of like the "God told me to marry you," which I think you have some experience with, neh? )
I've had experience with ALL of that. It seems like there's nothing so good that someone won't try to use it in a crappy way.
I think that Jesus, however, wouldn't do that. I think the infinite capacity for patience, strength, and love would provide for compensation. If he had that divine calling and was also married, I'm sure that he would be equal to all that is asked of him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In thinking this over, briefly-- wouldn't Jesus' marriage been arranged?
That throws a whole new spin on things. Would there have been a courtship in this case? If Joseph was still around, what would have been his role? What about Mary's?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:You know, I don't really think that finding out for certain that Jesus was married on earth would completely shatter my faith, my problem with the claim is that there doesn't really seem to be any real evidence for it.
I know it seems like kind of a stretch, but the two bible stories often used by persons who do beleave in a married Christ, are: The Marrage at Cana (John 2:5). Mary the mother of Jesus was the hostess, as indicated by her involvement with problem of the wine . Since she was the hostess, the wedding was for her son. And Jesus, as the oldest son, was therefore the bridegroom. And, At the tomb of the resurection, Mary Magdline was the first person to whom he appeared (John 20:14) showing her to be the most important (or most loved) of his mortal aquaintences. Of course this would then mean two wives. Take that you traditionalists.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Although there is some difference if we assume Jesus knew what was going to happen (and the Garden of Gethsemene cast some doubt), I don't think that marrying someone with a higher calling is all that unusual. Soldiers, for example, firemen, astronauts, certain civil rights leaders, all of these people know that they are at least risking the possibility of abandoning their families by dying.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
AT- The logic you used isn't necessarily complete; Mother Mary may have had other children getting married, for example-- not just Jesus. Of course, this explanaton bites into another early Christian tenet that is under dispute: the Ever-Virginity of Mary.
quote:At the tomb of the resurection, Mary Magdline was the first person to whom he appeared (John 20:14) showing her to be the most important (or most loved) of his mortal aquaintences.
Still isn't indicative of a marriage. Even if you believe the logic (which I'm not convinced of).
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I didn't say it was unusual, just that I would personally find it disagreeable. Like the guy who died on Mt. Everest before his child was even born? *wince* I don't like the idea of being in a committed relationship with a risk-taker (or the exterem physical variety). I take enough risks on my own, and (until I had children to care for) was very much okay with risking my life. I even thought it would be cool to be martyred.
But, when I heard the song "Major Tom" (or whatever it's called) as a child, I immediately thought "What the heck was he doing out there if he really loved someone?" and marked astronauts off my list.
I have no investment in the historical/religious figure of Jesus, other than thinking that his life probably was quite different than most people who worship him might assume, separated as they are by time and somewhat obtuse writings. So it's an interesting hypothetical.
I remember hearing a story about Simon Bolivar in which he said he'd never have come to South America if his wife had lived. With her, he would have been more than happy to raise a family and quietly retire to the countryside. So, if his wife had lived, would South America have been a very different place? Almost certainly. Sometimes personal unhappiness is a tool of god (or the universe or whatever) in people's lives to put them where they need to be, to do what they need to do.
So, really, I find the (possibly factual, possibly not) choices made by Jesus, much more admirable and moving if he really didn't know what was coming or wasn't, himself, a deity in any way.
*shrug* Don't be mad at me, please. I'm not saying this out of an emotional investment in any of it, and I'm not trying to diss anyone's beliefs. I was only trying to explain my personal reaction to the idea.
The only orthodoxy I try to keep is that of respecting other people's deeply held beliefs, so I definitely did not mean anything I have said to offend anyone.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Right. It's him saying, "now you know I'm always going to put God before you, right?" that's a possible warning sign. (Depending on how he said it, context of the discussion, etc.) Possibly he's a sincere, devout guy who just wants to make sure she knows that he can't love her more than God. But possibly he has an ego problem and is going to confuse his own plans with God and use the God card to trump her opinions. (Kind of like the "God told me to marry you," which I think you have some experience with, neh? )
IIRC (this was probably 7+ years ago), he asked her in front of the youth group one Sunday. Or he announced that he had asked her in front of the youth group. Either way, I clearly remember that the first thing he did in said proposal was pretty much say, "You know God's always going to come before you, right?"
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Olivet honey, never mad at you! Your personal reaction is perfectly valid. Mine would be different - but that is likely because I am a hopeless romantic, have the luxury of it being pure speculation, and am conditioned to the idea of great love that ends in tragedy and death. I sing Irish music for heaven's sake!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Slight derail: I loved the way our parish addressed the DVC controversy. The only thing said was in the Prayer of the Faithful. Without "naming any names" we thanked God for art and imagination and the wisdom to recognize it.
Posted by Ozymandias (Member # 9424) on :
I'm not sure if this has already been said- I only read about half of the other posts- but this is why I believe Jesus was married and had a child:
Back then, it was the norm for men to be married. If not, they we're seen as a social outcast. There is evidence that Mary was a somewhat wealthy, stand-alone woman- enough so that there has been question that she was a widow. If Jesus was an outcast, he probably would have had an extremely difficult time getting that many followers, let alone a respected wealthy woman in the amount of time the Bible says he did.
Also, the Catholic Church cleared Mary's name of being a whore.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jesus WAS an outcast, at least in his own city:
quote:St. Matthew Ch. 13:
54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Notice the lack of the mention of a wife, though they mention everyone else in his family...
I'd wager that Jesus' ideas on publicans and Samaritans garnered more critiscism than his marital state.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)