Hi BD! I don't find it threatening at all, but I guess some people are afraid, because it goes against their beliefs of what they have been taught. It is very hard for anyone to change their beliefs about their religion.
The bible is a very poor source to use as it has been so heavily edited over time by various groups . It is fine if you want it as a spiritual guide but as good source of history it is suspect. Depending on how you want to take it it could be argued that it is at least hinted at in the bible that translations and changes have changed the way things where written to change the relationship of Mary and Jesus.
Let us take The Gospel of Philip from the dead sea scrolls
And the companion of the of the Lord, Mary Magdalene. Jesus loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples where offended. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."
Now the key word is Companion. Which in this case means wife. The translation to English is where the confusion happens. Companion is used again as well
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.
It is interesting the Magdalene seems to always hold a spot with Jesus' Family. Not with the disciples.\
Now of course this Gospel was deemed unfit for the bible by people 1600+ years ago and would have remained unknown if not found with the other dead sea scrolls.
This and dozens of other accounts of people who where with Jesus where deemed incompatiable with the Jesus the early Catholic church was trying create. Those who did not support the approved bible where declared Heretics and killed. Any copies found of the banned gospels where destroyed (though it is said that in the Vatican there are pristine copies kept locked away).
Maybe I'm wrong here (and if so, please correct me)- but I don't think that it says anywhere in the bible that Jesus WASN'T married either. So, we're not really given any information on that subject. Maybe everybody has always just assmued that Jesus wasn't married because it fits with our own vision of how we think things should have happened. What I mean to say, is that typically speaking religion has that whole "we're not worthy" vibe going on..and why would God on earth in the form of Jesus bother to "waste" himself on a mortal woman? Would any woman among us feel truly worthy of such a thing? Personally speaking, I wouldn't. It's part and parcel of the human experience/condition...to feel unworthy of those things we place in a position of worship (in fact, if we felt truly worthy of something, would we bother to worship it in the first place?) I'm fairly certain that most of us here have felt "unworthy" sometimes (rationally or irrationally for that matter) with just our "ordinary" mates.
As a Roman Catholic I have no "problem" or "issue" accepting the fact that Jesus may have been married...it wouldn't even phase me if it were proven that he had children. Wasn't the whole point of Jesus coming to earth (aside from the sacrafice)supposed to be so God would know what it was truly like to be one of us? Wasn't that the reason why he chose the mortal body?- to feel things as we feel them? If the bible teaches us that love is the most important and valuable of human emotions and experiences, wouldn't it make more sense that Jesus was married and allowed himself to experience that as well, or are we to assume that Jesus only "allowed" himself to experience the negative things associated with being human and a love that was strictly platonic?
The Gospel Of Philip and many others where found as part of the Dead sea scrolls. This just happened to be a set of copies which managed to survive destruction. Again it is a strong theroy the Vatican holds better preserved copies including a complete Gospel of Magdalene in its vaults.
The council of Nicea was what decided what would become the bible or not. Anything not accepted was declared Heresy and people where punished severely for continuing to copy or refer to them
[quote]As a Roman Catholic I have no "problem" or "issue" accepting the fact that Jesus may have been married...it wouldn't even phase me if it were proven that he had children. Wasn't the whole point of Jesus coming to earth (aside from the sacrafice)supposed to be so God would know what it was truly like to be one of us? Wasn't that the reason why he chose the mortal body?- to feel things as we feel them? If the bible teaches us that love is the most important and valuable of human emotions and experiences, wouldn't it make more sense that Jesus was married and allowed himself to experience that as well, or are we to assume that Jesus only "allowed" himself to experience the negative things associated with being human and a love that was strictly platonic?[/quote]
I agreed with the same in my past posts. It doesn't bother me one way or the other. If they find out he was married, fine. In Jewish tradition, he might have been...there is a lot we do not know, since we are relying on information written by ment that could have been altered along the way. But, if they do confirm this, think of all the fanatics and nutcases that will be crawling out of the walls claiming they are his relatives. It will be somewhat of a nightmare and a joke...picture a reality show...Are you kin to Jesus? Hosted by Maury Povich, reading DNA's (after the commercial break)...LOL...give me a break.
But WHY wasn't it mentioned in the bible? I mean, maybe (possibly, I'm saying, just an ides) they didn't mentioned it, because they found no need to. I mean, it seems kind of obvious that they should say so if he DID marry, but if he didn't, then why would they put "Jesus never married"?
Because Jesus treated Mary as and Equal and Peter the founder of the Catholic church disliked her and her relationship with Jesus. So in his church she was excluded and then later turned into a prostitute and given a lower subservient status.
Why would it be out of the Ordinary. It would be more odd for him to not be Married. It was all but required a male in his status and social position to be married and to produce children. It would have been a major bad thing to not be.
Well...yeah. And if he came AS a human, then I suppose he should do things as any other human would. But he didn't. He didn't sin, and no other human has ever been able to do that.
Again you should read the Gospels that where not allowed. They show a very differant Jesus. The council of Nicea made him divine. Up till that point there where christian sects that said he was a man.
It think it is possible that Jesus was married and there used to be information about that written down somewhere...however through the ages the church decided to eliminate that evidence. Again, I think it comes down to the fact that Jesus (for as much as he was a mortal man, he was still God) and as such, I think the church may have decided that people may have a difficult time understanding why a diety would partake in such an event. Meaning to say that the church does not want people to view God as human, or capable or interested in the more common experiences associated with humanity.
Furthermore it may be a problem that the sacrafice of Jesus (the lamb) would be considered "less valid" or significant, because a married individual is not "pure" and untranished. The church (as I'm sure you have noticed) has a major hate-on for sex, which again, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't really an issue in the beginnings of the church, but came later.. If Jesus was here to start a new ministry, and was God on earth, would you leave information about his personal life (those things that may have gone on behind closed doors) around? Proabably not. You would leave the more important stuff like the miracles, the teachings and inspirational things...all the rest would be discarded for being deemed trivial.
I know bd is jumping out of his seat waiting for my comment. I almost think he created this thread just so me and him could have it out with each other. Sorry to disapoint you bd but I have only this to say:
I am storng in my faith. I believe that He was not married. Pull up every lost, dead, sea/ocaen scroll that you want. I will not cave in
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod-special,
Ok, we won't try to convince you. I'm not even convinced, myself.
And the way it looks right now, I'm not going to be. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with sex - only when teenagers and other un-married adults abuse it. It's the only way you can 'multiply' the way God told Adam and Eve to do. I don't know why some churches don't understand that.
I have a question: Do you, SBD and BD, believe you will go to heaven?
This thread was created for discussion nothing more .
[quote]I believe that the family blood line ends at jesus[/quote]
Well as mother (lapsed catholic BTW) sitting right beside me mentioned the bloodline didn't end simply because Jesus had brothers and sisters that is in the bible.
Lost? Nope they have been found so they are not lost any more. BTW the Dead sea scrolls have been declared authentic by the Vatican church so .....
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod-special,
[quote]I have a question: Do you, SBD and BD, believe you will go to heaven?[/quote]
Yes I believe I will go to heaven. I have sinned in my life, but I am sorry for all that I have sinned. I believe if one is truely sorry for what they have sinned they will go to heaven.
First off my concept of Heaven is a little different then yours. For me it is home and the life we have here is only part of a much larger life we really have. So when we die we go home. Recoup for a bit and then head out for another life to learn and grow in our real life which exists beyond this crude mortal flesh.
Why do you feel sex is such a bad thing? The gods ment it to be enjoyed responsibly. It was ment to bring people together. If it was only for breeding we would only have it during breeding cycles. Higher animals have sex for social as well as procreation reasons.
[quote]Well as mother (lapsed catholic BTW) sitting right beside me mentioned the bloodline didn't end simply because Jesus had brothers and sisters that is in the bible.[/quote]
Correct. I was wrong to say that. I was confusing bible verses.
[Quote]Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with sex only when teenagers and other un-married adults abuse it. It's the only way you can 'multiply' the way God told Adam and Eve to do. I don't know why some churches don't understand that. [Quote]
Ashlie, I believe the above quote is why Blackdruid is asking that question of you. Sure, you start off by saying that you don't see anything wrong with sex...but then you add a huge stipulation to your response, thereby negating the true value of it. Basically, I read that post to say "I don't see anything wrong with sex, so long as you are not young, or umarried. Sex is ok so long as it's falls within *my* view of when and how much sex should take place."
The end part of your quote "It's the only way you can 'multiply' the way God told Adam and Eve to do", is basically the view that the church has in regards to sex- It's only ok and not a sin when it is used for the expressed purpose of procreation.
No, this is not an "attack" on you...I'm just trying to explain where I *think* Blackdruids question/comment comes from.
BTW...(shhh don't tell anyone), but I do actually agree with you to some extent. I am after all a Catholic. LOL
Trust your faith, your thoughts, read for yourself and judge for yourself. Question those who question you, be open but accept only what you truly believe. Don't feel pressured to think the way someone else does. There are many things we are not sure of and it is fine to doubt, but look for the answers too and not just from one person's suggested websites, but there is a whole schlew of information on the internet. But be careful of the misleaders...remember, Charles Mansion's followers believed he was the Magic Man... Venture forward, but with caution.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod-special,
I'm not here to fight or argue with anyone, in fact, I have tried (and I hope succeeded)in remaining neutral. I'm my own Kat...I have my own thoughts and beliefs, my own feelings.... I may state those as I wish, and I do not intend (nor would I be happy) with changing anyones elses viewpoints.
So fair I think this is a rather interesting place to visit, we seem to have a fairly diverse collection of inidviduals lurking around here, and the discussion, thus far has been pretty friendly. I hope it remains that way.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod-special,
[quote]So fair I think this is a rather interesting place to visit, we seem to have a fairly diverse collection of inidviduals lurking around here, and the discussion, thus far has been pretty friendly. I hope it remains that way.[/quote]
It does and you are right. Really, we questions each other and make some remarks to poke at each other, but truthfully, we are all learning from each other...whether we agree or not. Religion is a very personal subject and this forum has many who are strong in their beliefs, that makes for an argument at times and some nit picking, but that is a good thing, If everyone agreed with each other one everything, this would be a very boring forum and I don't think it would have lasted this long. Glad you joined us.
Thomas Jefferson is BTW one of my favorite people and I use quotes from him often.
"Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free enquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?"
In this he is talking bout the Catholic church.[opinion] Who was trying to move in to control the New world. In the ~2000 years of its exsistence It still has not learned that it cannot use force weather by sword, or by law. This is the fault of the church and I feel very strongly and have tried to show you why that this is not church of Jesus. Who to me is a man, a venerated ancestor, a special person, but a person. Who message and life has been maligned by religion.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mod-special,
