0

Had jesus been married or had a child, this would contradict all of Christianity.. so I hope they discover he did soon =p

0

Had jesus been married or had a child, this would contradict all of Christianity.. so I hope they discover he did soon =p

Ugh... you and your atheist thoughts kill me. ;)

0

It would be completely unnecessary. Jesus wasn't a normal human being. His whole life and death was dedicated to saving the lost, nothing else. He was God in flesh, and His purpose was entirely different.

But He could have done things that were completely unnecessary and it would not affect His dedication. Maybe He bought a new pair of shoes one day. That would be unnecessary, but not unholy.

0

hah.. but seriously, how would the church recover if such things were discovered?

Just as it did when scientists found out that the solar system was not geocentric. It adapts. The church said God wouldn't have it any other way than to have his chosen people at the center of the universe and they were proven wrong and what happened? It was no more than a pebble thrown at a brick wall. They adapted.

0

>>hah.. but seriously, how would the church recover if such things were discovered?
the church would never recover... thank God that will never happen *sighs*

0

Of course it would. The church has been around and has survived much much much longer than the world of science.

0

Naw, the things you discussed were not as important as this..

It is fundamental throughout the Christian community.. The Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. There is no grandson.. If jesus had a son, then that would mean he wasn't the true son of god.. and thus all of christianity is destroyed, and everyone is now jewish lol.

The same is true if Jesus married.. He was supposed to be dedicated to only God.. as he was technically God. God has no wife, right? He is the most high.. he cannot have an equal. Besides, the priests marry the church when they take their vows.. supposedly like Jesus did. Jesus could not have had a family of his own if he was the true son of god. The church would fall.

0

Yeah, well I guess it would be unholy. But let's say hypothetically that it is proven (very hypothetical). What happens then?

0

haha.. hypothetical my ass.. :P

It would be difficult for the church to sort through it.. They would undoubtedly try to deny it.. cover it up.. send assassins after those who knew.. it could get very bloody ;)

1

Sorry I'm late posting to this; I got busy doing other stuff the past couple of days.

DaVinci Code:
From what I've seen, this was written pretty much as an 'In your Face, Church!' slam against Christianity. The original data Brown used in compiling his 'theory' was a set of forged documents written during the early-mid twentieth century. And I'm not sure that Brown cares about his credibility; there are some people who'll believe anything, no matter how absurd or how little evidence is given for it. See for example the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory of evolution.

As to the rest:

I never heard much controversy about Opus dei.. People were just pissed off about the idea that Jesus had a kid.. Which is completely reasonable. Most jews got married and had kids.. it was looked down upon if such a thing did not happen. I would not be surprised if Jesus and Mary Magdeline had married.. The dead sea scrolls seem to represent this idea clearly.

As Christina said, Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, was most decidedly not 'most jews'.

That's absolutely true. It would seem that if Jesus didn't have a wife there would be an explanation for such a thing in the Bible but there isn't.

It would seem more likely to me that if He had taken a wife, that would have been more likely to be recorded. Even if you believe that only the 'teachings' of Jesus went into the Gospels, you'd run up against the fact that the Gospel of Luke was a historical/biographical record of the life and teaching of Christ. Do you think a historian would have let a life event that major slip by the wayside?

Or how about at the Crucifixion?

26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

He spoke to, and of, his earthly mother. Would not his wife have been even more on his mind at this point? The Magdalene was present at the scene; would he not have spoken to her had she been married to him?

At the time it would be very strange not to have a wife. There are also a lot of books, in fact the majority, that weren't included in the Bible that many believe should have been.

You are referring either to the Apocrypha, or to the Gnostic gospels. The simple reason for their lack of inclusion is thus:

1. Apocrypha: Tended to stand in contradiction to the Old Testament scriptures. [Interesting note: The only even semi-scriptural reference I've seen that tends to support the doctrine of Purgatory was in one of the books of the apocrypha, where a Greek soldier asks Jewish priests to pray for his fallen men. I want to say this was in 2nd Macabees, but I can't recall for certain.]

2. Gnostic Gospels: Written after the apostolic age, mostly; the original volumes of the scriptures were written within a few decades of the time of Christ, most of the Gnostic gospels were not written until a century or two had passed. And the 'fancy' names given to them would seem to indicate that their original authors were trying to make them seem more valid than they really were. The books chosen for inclusion into the canon weren't hand-picked; they were those books (and letters) that had been in use by the church for ages at the time.

Even some books that are in the Bible were debated on whether they should be in there or not. Such as the book of Ezra which does not even mention the Lord at all.

I believe you are referring to the book of Esther; the book of Ezra clearly mentions the Lord many times simply within the first chapter. And while the name of the Lord is never mentioned in Esther, Mordecai's faith in Him seems to be one of the running strong points of the book, from what I've seen.

Although I don't think Jesus had a wife or kid, I wouldn't be surprised and I still don't necessarily think it would be wrong, anymore than I think the Earth not being the center of the solar system is wrong (the opposite of an earlier claim by the catholic church).

1. From what I've seen, the earth was never considered to be the center of the solar system, or the universe...we were in the sump heap of the universe. Remember, gravity pulls things down. They didn't know about the theory of gravitational attraction, all they knew was that everything seemed to fall to the earth. So they assumed that anything which didn't was better than the earth. The earth's status got an upgrade when it was given planetary status; rather than being the universal trash dump, it was now one of the celestial bodies.

2. Unless you're planning to accuse Christ of bigamy, I'd say there's a problem with his getting married. The Church is known in the scriptures as the Bride of Christ, recall.

There is something we, christians call the Sacred Trinity (i don't know for sure if that's the proper english name), which are the three persons of God: The Father,The Son, and The Holy Ghost... The three of them are mentioned in The Creation: The Father, The Son, who came from the Father, and the Holy Ghost, who came from the Father and the Son. In the New Testament, the Father is mentioned as the Father, the Son, as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is mentioned as a white dove...

That's why we call Jesus the "Son of God", because He is the second person of the Sacred Trinity...

For a more specific reference, please refer to the King James version of the scriptures, the book of First John, the fifth chapter and seventh verse. "For there are three that bear record in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."

And recall the first chapter of the Gospel of John, written by the same author. Verses one and two state "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.", while verse fourteen states "14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Naw, the things you discussed were not as important as this..

It is fundamental throughout the Christian community.. The Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. There is no grandson.. If jesus had a son, then that would mean he wasn't the true son of god.. and thus all of christianity is destroyed, and everyone is now jewish lol.

I hope not. I happen to enjoy boiled shrimp, and that is most decidedly not kosher!

The same is true if Jesus married.. He was supposed to be dedicated to only God.. as he was technically God. God has no wife, right? He is the most high.. he cannot have an equal. Besides, the priests marry the church when they take their vows.. supposedly like Jesus did. Jesus could not have had a family of his own if he was the true son of god. The church would fall.

Technically?

haha.. hypothetical my ass..

It would be difficult for the church to sort through it.. They would undoubtedly try to deny it.. cover it up.. send assassins after those who knew.. it could get very bloody

Quite possible; considering some of what I've seen would indicate that the Jesuits, at least, have a very warped view of Hebrews 9:22.

Votes + Comments
omg... i couldn't have said better...
0

A few things to say about that one EnderX. For one, we all know the Da Vinci Code is a novel, but what are you referring to when you say "forged documents"? If you are saying that some books weren't included because they were written too long after the events took place then why are the first five books of the Bible included (thought to be written by Moses I believe)? Yes, you're right it was Esther. My bad. After reading all those old testament books some of them start to blend together. And the church actually did believe the Earth was flat, (I mistakenly said they thought it was geocentric, but those beliefs were still held).

0

see... i don't think the books and the gospels in the bible were selected randomly... maybe, theres a remote possibility that they went through a deep study so they could be proven to be true... so... do you think that guy dan brown has any reason to write about those gnostic gospels (do you really think he has access to them?)? YES... because that would make his book a bestseller... i'm pretty sure that with all that crap he sold more copies than harry potter itself... he's just a jerk that wants to call everyones attention, even though if he jeopardizes many people's beliefs...


i'm pretty sure the books and gospels in the holy bible have been studied by several councils so they could be proven true...

0

Here's the way I see it. For everyone that believes in Christianity. If it truly is God's word, then He would never allow anything to be surpressed or anything to be entered that isn't true. He wouldn't allow anyone to change his intentions or mislead His own followers in such a great way.

0

Okay, I have just read a bit of enderx's post. And all I have to say is quit using the bible as a damn reference. The bible was written years after jesus, and is not historically accurate (Yes, even though your research paper says otherwise, Duki).

0

I've really never seen a thread become so derailed before. Heh. But it's okay. I don't really care. We can continue talking about this.

1

A few things to say about that one EnderX. For one, we all know the Da Vinci Code is a novel, but what are you referring to when you say "forged documents"?

I'm saying that the 'evidence' for the Priory of Sion, and the entire 'Merovingian = bloodline of Jesus' deal, were from forged documents that surfaced in France during the first half of the twentieth century. One of the best indications they were forged is that they seemed to name the guy who found them as the rightful heir to the French throne.

If you are saying that some books weren't included because they were written too long after the events took place then why are the first five books of the Bible included (thought to be written by Moses I believe)?

I may not have made my statements clearly enough. That particular requirement was for the Gospels; the Gospels had to have been of apostolic origin, meaning either they were written by one of the apostles, or were taken from the testimony of the apostles. (For example, the Gospel of Mark is the testimony of Simon Peter, as recorded by John Mark.) Books written 100+ years after the time of Christ (such as the Gnostic Gospels) would not have been valid based on this account. [This was not the only requirement for acceptance as valid; I simply bring it up as it was the one in question here.]

And the church actually did believe the Earth was flat, (I mistakenly said they thought it was geocentric, but those beliefs were still held).

Again, I'm finding myself doubting that. Could you please verify your information for me? The earth's shape (and about the correct size) have been known since ancient Greece. Unless you're claiming that the Catholic Institution simply chose to hide the truth from those under them, I would expect that knowledge to have been reasonably available, at least to the educated. (Note: This also deals on the 'Columbus/Flat Earth' argument brought up occasionally. The intelligentisa of Columbus's day simply thought he was underestimating the size of the world...which he was.)


see... i don't think the books and the gospels in the bible were selected randomly... maybe, theres a remote possibility that they went through a deep study so they could be proven to be true...

i'm pretty sure the books and gospels in the holy bible have been studied by several councils so they could be proven true...

Wouldn't matter. By the time of the Synod of Hippo (and considering the evidence, probably by the time of the first Council of Nicea), the scriptures would have been recognzied by the members of the Church (all believers) themselves, on the basis of simple common usage. They would have been compared to the Hebrew scriptures for accuracy checking, and they would have had to gain widespread acceptance among the Church, not just one or two little areas.

so... do you think that guy dan brown has any reason to write about those gnostic gospels (do you really think he has access to them?)? YES... because that would make his book a bestseller... i'm pretty sure that with all that crap he sold more copies than harry potter itself... he's just a jerk that wants to call everyones attention, even though if he jeopardizes many people's beliefs...

You forgot the part about making him a great deal of money, although perhaps that was supposed to be an understood. If it was, then I apologize for not doing so.

Here's the way I see it. For everyone that believes in Christianity. If it truly is God's word, then He would never allow anything to be surpressed or anything to be entered that isn't true. He wouldn't allow anyone to change his intentions or mislead His own followers in such a great way.

Ever taken a good, close look at the materials in the Apocrypha before? Trust me, so long as we've got free will, there will be those who try to misstate the truth. However, simply reason and thought can generally reveal this deception. There's a reason the books of the Apocrypha, and the Gnostic Gospels, never made it into their respective canon listings. (OT for Apocrypha, NT for Gnostic works.)


Okay, I have just read a bit of enderx's post. And all I have to say is quit using the bible as a damn reference. The bible was written years after jesus, and is not historically accurate (Yes, even though your research paper says otherwise, Duki).

Actually, the greater portion of it was written before Him, Josh. It's the stuff we call the Old Testament, and is also known as the Hebrew Bible. It is the Jewish scriptures that were already in place during the time of Christ, and which had been for ~400 years. (End of the time of the prophet Malachi to the time of Christ.) Of the 66 books of the Bible, 39 of them are in the Old Testament.

As to the New Testament, Josh, the evidence I've seen (I'll try to track it down for you) would indicate that the Gospels were written within a generation of the time of Christ, and that the Epistles (letters) were written within a couple of decades of His life, at the latest. If that's what you mean by 'years', then okay. If you're going for the traditional atheistic/anti-christian "it's all a bunch of mythological hooey" argument, then I'm afraid you're mistaken about the timeline. Mythbuilding around a person's life can't occur within the span where witnesses are still available. Not unless you're assuming that every possible witness, including those who would normally be considered hostile witnesses, are in on the deception. I'd say that goes doubly so when the local political authorities (both Jewish and Roman in this case) are in the hostile category.

And as to the historical accuracy references, Josh, why don't you prove your claim? The vast majority of the Old Testament is rich with historical information - take some examples from some of those books, and post how they are incorrect, if you would be so kind. If it's as inaccurate as you say, then you shouldn't have any problem with this. If your statement is that it's inaccurate because it depicts God working within mankind, then by all means, limit yourself to the nation-to-nation interactions described therein from a purely secular postion, or the location descriptions given for various places, when you attempt to disprove the scriptures' validity.

And in reference to your request, I'm afraid that I've never used the Bible as a 'damn' reference in my life...it's been more of a 'blessed' one instead.

Votes + Comments
You deserve a good rep for this.
0

You've pointed out some individuals who held that belief. Granted, some, like Augustine, were considered to be influential in other areas, although your own reference document indicates that the beliefs on the flat earth weren't very influential on the church as a whole.

Can you prove that the flatness of the earth was ever a part of the doctrine of the Church as a whole? Or can you prove only that certain men among those named as church fathers held it?

0

It was to my understanding that the church held such positions. I guess the church as a whole didn't hold the position, but as you said, influential individuals have. I'll leave it at that.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.