posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's silly. If their religion claims he wasn't, then of course it's offensive to them. Duh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, what I find most offensive, unChristian, and totally without viable proof, is that the decendants of Jesus and Mary are French.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
"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."
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
