posted
For centuries, the leaders of the dominant Christian denominations have maintained control over the religion and its followers by instituting an unending series of dogmatic and doctrinaire canons and rules, which criminalized all opposition or inquiry that could lead to any truth that may be contrary to Church doctrine. For instance, for centuries, it was Church dogma that the world was flat, not round. Hence, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that the world was round, not flat, the Church proclaimed Galileo Galilee a heretic and dragged him to an Inquisition and to his death simply because Galileo confirmed the discovery of Copernicus, which debunked the Church's flat earth dogma. There is a long list of silly fallacies, which were sustained through the brutal use of the Church�s coercive power and concerted attack on any and all who dared to uncover the falsehood in the dogma.
It is well known that many books written by several disciples of Jesus Christ were not included in what we know today as the Holy Bible. Even some of the books that were included were altered and manipulated to conform them to what the powers that be wanted us to know and believe. In place of an accurate account of the life of Jesus Christ, the Church substituted a propaganda version of Christ's life, which leaves out or distorts important events in his life such as his marriage to Mary Magdalene and the birth of Jesus' children. Scientifically explicable events were reported as miracles, and women who worked as disciples and Apostles of Jesus were tagged as whores in order to preserve the domination of women by men. In its bid to substitute its version of religious history, the Church reduced the Bible to a heretical document, the very obloquy the Church once reserved for those who challenged established religious doctrine.
___________________ Biafra, by any means necessary! Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
You are wrong. There is a lot of literature about the marriage of Jesus Christ. I have read similar articles.
The post by Vitalis was made nearly eight hours before the ABC show, which started at 8pm E.S.T last night, just before Monday Night Football. I watched both.
As you know, the time displayed on this Message Board is BiafraNigerian time, which is six hours ahead of Eastern time, so November 03, 2003 06:08 PM Board time was 10: 08 AM E.S.T. the same day, nearly eight hours before the show on Dan Brown's "the Da Vinci Code"
Posts: 397 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Patrick, I am not wrong. Vitalis got his information from ABC news by default. Stations do advertise what they consider coming attractions sometimes for weeks. TV guide usually have very good narrative of what the story line will be. Anyway even if Mr. Vitalis denies getting his information from ABC news, he got it from the book and should have said so.
I did not watch the trash, I only happened to glance at it while surfing for Monday night football. I am a child of God and will never watch such nonsense about our Lord Jesus Christ.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2503 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
He got it from the ABC news documentary last night 11/03 based on a novel. --- Ednut
When he got caught, Ednut wrote:
quote:Vitalis got his information from ABC news by default. Stations do advertise what they consider coming attractions sometimes for weeks. TV guide usually have very good narrative of what the story line will be. Anyway even if Mr. Vitalis denies getting his information from ABC news, he got it from the book and should have said so.
Ednut:
You should not be so categorical when speaking about things you are unsure about. The material for my post came from many sources, including several books and articles. I drew my own conclusions after reading the sources. I don't know why you expect me to cite ABC when ABC was not one of the sources I relied on for my post. For that matter, why should I have to cite any particular sources for material that is common knowledge and that was all over the web long before Dan Brown's book and the so-called ABC show.
My post contains plenty of information that is absolutely absent from the shallow ABC show "Jesus, Mary, and Da Vinci," which aired last night and was focused on Dan Brown's book, THE DA VINCI CODE.
You shouldn't simply make empty statements about TV Guide or the show itself since you admit that you have no knowledge of what either source contained. You have failed to cite the contents of either the Dan Brown book or the TV Guide to support your assertions.
I will soon post excerpts from some of the sources. But, before I do that, I challenge you to show why you believe that the source of the information is the shallow ABC show, TV Guide, or the book, THE DA VINCI CODE, which I have not even read.
___________________ Biafra, by any means necessary! Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
�The Marriage of Jesus Christ: Is the Bible Heretical?�
First of all, I think it is important to define the word �Heresy�, the noun form of the adjective �heretical�.
�Heresy� is defined by Webster�s New World dictionary of the American Language as:
A religious belief opposed to the Orthodox doctrines of a Church; especially such a belief specifically denounced by the Church and regarded as likely to cause a schism.
Any opinion (in philosophy or politics, etc) opposed to official or established views or doctrines.
The holding of such a belief or opinion.
When discussing religions like Christianity, Islam or Judaism, it is important to recognize that each of these three religions have a book that they regard as their moral and spiritual compass. That is to say, that in each of these religions, they place their highest belief in these books and strive to live according to its dictates. They usually maintain the perspective given in these books; striving to accept and keep its doctrines and injunctions and generally eschewing those that are not found in these books. These books are the Bible, the Quran and the Torah.
There are scriptural injunctions in the Bible and the Quran for Man not to add or subtract from the generally accepted body of these divinely-inspired books as doing so usually comes with a hefty punishment. So, it is not in the least surprising that most Christians, or Muslims as the case may be, might be very skeptical about swallowing the contents of any of these new books that mysteriously keep being �unearthed� or �discovered� especially if such new revelations coming from these new �discoveries� happen to contradict the Bible or the Quran.
So, when the word �Heresy� is used, it invariably goes to describe beliefs that are specifically denounced or condemned by long-established official Church views, dogma etc-- or the doctrines handed down by the Scriptures.
However, I really do not agree with the broad parameters set for what constitutes a heresy or not. I think the Bible or the Quran (as the case may be) is and SHOULD BE THE ONLY DETERMINANT of what constitutes heresy or not. For me, for something to qualify as a heresy, it has to be something radically different from that which has been specified by the Holy Bible. If such a belief is not supported by the Bible (or the Quran for Muslims), such a teaching has to be quickly debunked or alternatively, its adherents have the liberty of getting a specific name that delineates them from the main body of religious followers. In my opinion, deviations from dogmas, canons, edicts and such as become the traditions of men, DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT necessitate the reclassification of a particular teaching as heresy. The Bible or the Quran (for these two religions), form the basis or bedrock upon which other doctrines can now be examined.
At this juncture, it is important to stress however that these two religions have witnessed schisms when there are varying interpretations of scripture. As is most often the case, a group maintains that its interpretation of a particular scripture or its understanding of a particular doctrine is the genuine one thus prompting the other party to separate themselves from the former group. They now become different denominations or sects of that particular religion. It won�t be long before they start calling each other heretics nevertheless the important thing to note is that their differences can honestly be traced down to just a fundamental disagreement over the likely interpretation of specific SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE/S.
As a result, when outrageous new doctrines that fly in the face of GENERALLY ACCEPTED positions advocated by the Bible (the ultimate authority over these issues) surfaces, the tag �heresy� given to these claims or views becomes justifiable. IT IS A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME IF THE DIFFERENCE was that of Scriptural INTERPRETATION.
So, I am honestly puzzled by the question that this thread asks. �Is the Bible Heretical?� seems not to make a whole lot of sense to me unless there is another book that Christians consider the ultimate book. If the question asks whether the teaching on the likely marriage of Jesus Christ was heretical, then that makes perfect sense. That is because one can now juxtapose this teaching with the Bible and then reach a logical conclusion. The author can now then dive into history, archeological findings, ancient texts, or do a thorough search of the bible and other books to advance the position that this new teaching is indeed biblical or at least, in line with fundamental biblical principles. The point I wish to make here is that the Bible which generated the long-established beliefs of those who call themselves Christians, must be brought to bear on this new teaching; as only the Bible is in the position to pass a verdict of �Heresy� or �Non-heresy� to any teaching out there.
So, looking through the brief write up above, it does seem as if the author took great pains to direct us to the possibility that there are books out there that may contain some tidbits that are worth investigating. It does appear that the author highlighted human frailty and the human propensity to cling tenaciously to long-held practices as proof positive that the teaching on Christ�s possible marriage above MAY be true.
While it is important to highlight that the emptiness of the Church heads during Galileo�s days prevented them from accepting the truth advanced by Copernicus, it would be too much of an oversight not to point that there are various portions of the Bible that does confirm the idea that the world could be round/ball-shaped or spherical to be precise. In fact, depending on language and the intricacies of scriptural transliteration, it defies reason not to realize that certain statements in the Bible regarding the supposed �flatness� of the earth can best be understood by taking into full consideration the FULL CONTEXT of the statement.
On whether Jesus was married, a school-of-thought purports that the marriage feast in Cana during which Jesus miraculously turned water to wine was HIS OWN MARRIAGE CEREMONY especially when you consider the seeming 'hostess' role played by Mary, His fleshly mother. I have heard other opinions that suggest that Mary Magdalene was Christ�s wife. Others contend that during that interval of His life before He fully began His earthly ministry, (unmentioned by the New Testament), He took several wives.
The common denominator to these claims however, is that they are unsubstantiated by the Bible.
The task for Mr. Vitalis, IN THE LIKELY ABSENCE OF BIBLICAL SUPPORT, becomes not only presenting these new �discoveries�/writings/revelations that support this new teaching but also making provision for a possible disagreement over the meaning or interpretation of the �discoveries� that he wants us to consider. Also, at the heart of the matter lies the fundamental question as to whether he wants these new �writings� to be considered purely for its possible informational value or whether he asseverates that they ( this teaching and whatever extra-biblical documents that support it) must be given the full recognition of being divinely-inspired.
When we get the details on this teaching from Mr. Vitalis, as I expect, in subsequent posts, it would be up to any Christian to weigh that new teaching against a standard (THE BIBLE). I am quite convinced that sincere Christians can be able to decide whether this radical new teaching should be dismissed as heresies or given the proper consideration that it might probably merit.
Not so fast burster! You have the same problem that Patrick pointed out to you earlier. The post in your link was made Monday, Nov. 3, 2003, at 1:10 PM PT. That is more than 4 hours after I made my post here. As I also stated earlier, my post contains information not found in the so-called ABC documentary.
quote:Mrs. God A new documentary suggests that Jesus might not have been celibate after all. By Sian Gibby Posted Monday, Nov. 3, 2003, at 1:10 PM PT
Elizabeth Vargas on the trail of the wife of Christ
Was Jesus married? Is it possible that what religious history and scriptures call the Holy Grail�the cup Jesus drank from at the Last Supper�was not the chalice that held his blood, but rather a symbol representing the woman who bore his child?
On Monday night, ABC will air a documentary that offers an alternative view of Christianity inspired by Dan Brown's best-selling mystery novel The Da Vinci Code. The film, titled Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci, is certain to make some people uncomfortable since it examines the idea that Jesus didn't live a celibate life, as Christian history has always maintained. Yet it's unfortunate that the documentary gives as much credence to the novel as it does: In doing so, it forgoes serious scholarship in favor of sensationalist rumor and shaky theorizing.
The novel suggests that Jesus married and fathered a child with Mary Magdalene who, in order to keep the child safe, fled the Middle East with a group of early Christians. These refugees settled in the south of France, and from them came a line of French kings known as the Merovingians. Brown's theory�which is based on old legends and forms the backdrop for his novel�is that the existence of Jesus' descendants was kept a secret by a group of loyal cultists well into the 20th century. The leaders of this society, called the Priory of Sion, included prominent men from science, politics, and the arts, including Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Leonardo Da Vinci.
In Brown's telling, the group deliberately altered the record of Mary's role in the life of Jesus to save her family from the hands of those in the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy who preferred their own version of Jesus as a celibate savior. To do this, they used code and symbols to represent her, hence the "code" of the title. In this way they could record her existence as the wife of their beloved Christ without telling the whole truth about the role she played in his life. Over time and throughout artistic expression, this symbolic representation morphed into the "chalice" of the Lord, or the Holy Grail: the feminine symbol of the container or vessel that contains the bloodline of Jesus Christ.
This film wonders if such a story, put forth as fiction in Brown's book, might actually have fact behind it. As it happens, it doesn't. The film's hostess, Elizabeth Vargas, interviews Catholic priests and Protestant evangelicals as well as art historians and biblical scholars, none of whom can produce any conclusive proof on the question of Jesus' putative marriage. Much screen time�far too much�is devoted to Brown himself, who is presented as a kind of historian; he expresses his belief in the theory with great animation but without any real scholarship or evidence to back it up.
The film leans heavily on Brown's interpretation of Da Vinci's famous painting The Last Supper. Look closely at the figure to Jesus' right, Brown says; it's obviously a woman. What any art historian could tell him is that the figure, always thought to be St. John the Apostle, resembles other Leonardo portraits of biblical figures as effeminate men.* If Da Vinci thought John looked like a girly man, that's one thing. But a girlish-looking figure in a painting isn't proof that Mary was present at the Last Supper, let alone that Jesus and Mary were married. (And, by the way, if Mary was sitting in John's seat at the Last Supper, where was John?)
Many of the other mysterious threads of Brown's theory lead to unsubstantiated sources. The names of the ostensible leaders of the Priory of Sion, as well as the extensive family tree tracing Jesus' lineage into the modern day, come from a document supposedly found by an unknown person in the bowels of the Biblioth�que Nationale in Paris in the 1960s. The film never mentions origins of the document, nor does it acknowledge the possibility that it could be an elaborate hoax.
To Vargas' and the producers' credit, they trot out some impressive scholars to comment, including Elaine Pagels, Jack Wasserman, and Umberto Eco. While many of the interviewees express polite interest in the theoretical ramifications of this notion, they can't shed any real light on the question. Yes, the Catholic Church has had problems dealing with sex and women. And it behaved extremely badly at times, the Crusades and the Inquisition being two shameful examples. But those sad facts do not a conspiracy make. As titillating or shocking as the idea of Jesus having sex might be, we just don't know if he did. The few historical texts we can refer to, including recently recovered ones like the Gospel of Thomas, don't mention Mary's relationship to Jesus, and so they don't bring us closer to the truth.
The film no doubt aims to encourage religious discussion by bringing an incendiary theory to light. But any debate on this topic is bound to be fruitless and frustrating since hard facts simply don't exist to support it. In the end, the film only provides extra (unnecessary) publicity for Brown's best-selling novel.
It's likely that most Christians welcome representations of Jesus that make him seem more real, more like us, more modern. He is, after all, supposed to have been wholly human and wholly divine. And what could be more completely human than loving someone and having a child with that person? Some will find that notion very attractive indeed; others most emphatically will not. But Christians won't find definitive answers to the mystery in the novel or this film.
Correction, Nov. 3, 2003: The original version of this article identified the figure next to Jesus in Da Vinci's The Last Supper as John the Baptist. It is not John the Baptist but rather St. John the Apostle. So much for rigorous scholarship! Return to the corrected sentence.
I take it that the above is the best you could do.
___________________ Biafra, by any means necessary! Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Jesus Christ in the eyes of Micheal Angelo, a gay artist, who helped the Catholic church carved out the image of Christ as tall, slim, blue eye-white male and now was married to a pro, gotta be the bestest lies for the children of the 21st Century.
Hail Biafra Posts: 1832 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
How much do you know about Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church after you abandoned Amadioha, the god of our ancestors?
Posts: 47 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](../../../../../../../../../messageboard-sub/ubb/smile.gif)
