Intrepid wrote:It is amazing and somewhat telling when the only thing that is taken out of my previous post is the tongue in cheek gay reference.
Oh, well. Carry on.
Let me explain why I did it.
There was no need to expound on your post at all. I had no issue with what you said and I pretty much agreed with the basic principle. So, I merely decided to take the tongue-in-cheek gay reference further and lighten the mood. Is that so wrong?
I came across this on a Christian site.
Quote:Question: "Was Jesus Christ married?"
Answer: Was Jesus married? No, Jesus Christ was not married. A recent popular book, "The Da Vinci Code," speaks of Christ being married to Mary Magdalene. This myth / lie is absolutely false and has no basis theologically, historically, or Biblically. Even in all of the supposed "lost gospels," none of them specifically states that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. The closest any of them come is saying that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene. If Jesus had been married, the Bible would have told us so - or there would be some unambiguous statement to that fact. Those who believe / teach these myths about Jesus are doing so in an attempt to "humanize" Him, to make Him more ordinary - like everyone else. People simply do not want to believe that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:1,14; 10:30). So, they believe myths about Jesus being married, having children, and being an ordinary human being.
A secondary question would be, "Could Jesus Christ have been married?" There is nothing sinful about being married. There is nothing sinful about having sexual relations in marriage. So, yes, Jesus could have been married and still be the sinless Lamb of God, the Savior of the world. At the same time, there is no reason Biblically that Christ would have married. That is not the point in this debate. Those who believe that Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was the Messiah. Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus. Mark 10:45 tells us why Jesus came, "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."
SOURCE
If someone knows of a passage in the Bible, that precludes Jesus marrying, I'd be happy to admit error.
Is it just me or does anybody else see at least one logical contradiction and one baseless assumption in that article?
Marriage doesn't preclude service, jeez.
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Intrepid wrote:It is amazing and somewhat telling when the only thing that is taken out of my previous post is the tongue in cheek gay reference.
Oh, well. Carry on.
Let me explain why I did it.
There was no need to expound on your post at all. I had no issue with what you said and I pretty much agreed with the basic principle. So, I merely decided to take the tongue-in-cheek gay reference further and lighten the mood. Is that so wrong?
No, it isn't wrong. You obviously said it tongue in cheek and even gave an alternative thought. It was Setanta's obvous mockery that prompted by response and you ended up with the fallout. I am sorry for that.
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:Is it just me or does anybody else see at least one logical contradiction and one baseless assumption in that article?
The article seems to have all the bases covered. Shades of gray and nothing black and white.
And-- "Those who believe that Jesus was married do not believe that He was sinless, or that He was the Messiah."
Complete assumptive bullshit.
Baseless assumption
Quote:If Jesus had been married, the Bible would have told us so
logical contradiction
Quote:Those who believe / teach these myths about Jesus are doing so in an attempt to "humanize" Him, to make Him more ordinary - like everyone else.
So, yes, Jesus could have been married and still be the sinless Lamb of God, the Savior of the world.
But if Jesus married and raised a family he would be "ordinary". So Jesus could not have been married.
Quote:Getting married and having children is not why God sent Jesus.
Why does marriage prevent him from fulfilling his purpose?
Quote:"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."
What does marriage and having children have to do with being served, unless God has such a low opinion of women that he thinks their only purpose is to serve man. I never looked upon marriage and raising children as being served.
From the ancient Jewish point of view, a woman's only purpose was to serve.
Well then that settle's it; Christ could not have been married because he would be served.
Do you suppose there is anything in the Bible that shows Christ being served or gaining special privileges because of his status as a leader of a pack.
Let's step back for a little perspective, Xingu . . .
The DaVinci Code=work of fiction
The Bible=work of fiction
Why should anyone care if the terms of the one are consonant with the other?
[quote="xingu"]Well then that settle's it; Christ could not have been married because he would be served.
Do you suppose there is anything in the Bible that shows Christ being served or gaining special privileges because of his status as a leader of a pack.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by that first statement xingu. I don't think there is anything in the Bible about Him being served, but He wasn't the leader of any pack (unless you'd call His disciples a pack.) :wink:
The DaVinci Code = professed book of fiction
Bible = alleged Book of fiction
It is only to be expected those who's ability to differentiate between fact and fiction is deficient would at once endorse one or another of the various derivative subsets of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia and see threat to their belief set posed through a current, and openly declared as such, work of speculative fiction ... its all the same to them.
My point here is that if I have to listen interminably to a certain few people professing to know God's plan for this, and his ideas about that----and see their self-proclaimed words of wisdom about the Bible and their bud, God, as they tell other people what is right and wrong, they damn well need to be able to give accurate answers about their own mythology when called on it.
So, answer, or stfu.
Didn't Mary Magdalene wipe Jebus' feet with expensive incense, is that serving?
As far as the gay thing, it's already been supposed in the play "Corpus Christi," by Terrance McNally.
It's a parable. The play caused a lot of turned-up-noses in the Christian community also. How dare anyone interpret the Bible other than us and how dare anyone use the work as a basis for an alternative moral allegory. I suppose they are touchy with those sticks up their asses.
Corpus Christi (play)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Corpus Christi is a passion play by Terrence McNally dramatizing the story of Christ and the Apostles. It is highly controversial due to its depiction of Christ and the Apostles as gay men living in modern day Texas. It contrasts modern devices like television with anachronisms like Roman occupation. This Judas betrays Jesus (in this version known as Joshua) because of sexual jealousy.
It received both critical acclaim for its exploration of gay themes in Christianity and widespread condemnation for what many view as blasphemy. It was directed in New York City by Joe Mantello, opening October 13, 1998.
Awards
Drama Desk Award, Best Play
Outer Critics Circle Award, Best Play
New York Drama Critics' Circle Award, Best Play
The Real Code
The movie is an ad for Christianity. It cleans up the prostitute image of Mary Magdalene Jesus' best friend and turns her into a Saint.
Where in the Bible does it state she was ever a prostitute? Yet clerics and laypeople have been spreading that misnomer for centuries.
