Posted: 1/17/2005 4:21:54 PM EDT
|
Did any of the Board's registered gnostics catch this lovely program? I've been off the Board for a couple of days and it amazed me that no one mentioned this program, when I signed on! I would have thought it likely that there would be a ten page plus thread on this subject! What happened? A Templar's cat got your tongue?  Eric The(Orthodox)Hun 
|
Damn, I went to Page 10 on the General Discussion Board and didn't see that thread! And only the original post and 3 replies???!!! Where are the Board's gnostics, when you really wish to discuss something like this with them? Embarrassed beyond all belief? Probably! About about this gem - 'the Templars were destroyed by King Phillip the Fair of France and the Pope, who was desparate to suppress the embarrassing 'Sang Real' documents the Templars had supposedly recoved from the foundations of King Solomon's Temple!' The Pope helped destroy the Templars! What a riot! Anyone with any knowledge of Templar history knows that is a bald faced lie! Eric The(Sassier'nHades)Hun
|
|
I watched the thing and it was actually a pretty decent coverage. It covered some of the base materials that the novel draws from, but also did a fairly decent (meaning better than I expected) job of portraying the stories about Mary and Jesus as "stories" and didn't claim to have any proof of any ecumenical conspiracy to "supress" the ideas held by gnostics. The truth is that the gnostic ideas had been around from the very earliest parts of Christianity, and had been rebuked already in Paul's writings before the end of the 1st Century. Gnosticism is not new or "amazing". It has been seen as a corruption of the truth from the very beginnings of Christianity. |
My Hun, the Pope DID go along with the destruction of the Knights Templar. He had no choice. Only very recently have we learned that the Pope did NOT agree with the Templar destruction as a letter buried deep within the Vatican for many, many years shows that clearly. What Philip wanted to suppress was the shit load of money he owed the Templars - boy was up to his royal ass in Templar debt. 5sub |
|
Hun, you sure you don't have your history mixed up? Philip played a major part in the removal of the death of Pope Boniface VIII and also played a large part in the election of the French Pope, Clement V. Clement V was the Pope at the time the Templars were arrested. Many rulers supported the templars at first, but were forced to follow Philip's actions after recieving orders from Pope Clement V. Clement is remembered as a weak pope with a penchant for nepotism who was rule by Philip in most things. He did show backbone in 1 maybe 2 instances that I know of: 1) he would not allow Philip to tarnish the name of a dead man. When he pushed for the heresy trial of Boniface VIII, Clement personally swore he did not think the charges were true. 2) He may have secretly pardoned the templars in 1314 (7 years after their arrest) according to a document found in the Vatican Archives. Of course if you believe that, whats to stop you from believing in the list of Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion. ;p Philip was definitely the architect of the plan to bring down the templars, but it would not have been possible without the approval (coerced or otherwise) of the Pope. I subscribe to the historical view on the Templars. Some of what the conspiracy theorists say is true, but where it leads them is pure speculation. A lot of is Baigents wish to make a link between Jesus and the royal family of Scotland. He wants a Scotland free of English rule, and a strong ruler with the blood of a God in his veins would not hurt those ambitions at all. As far as Jesus being married, there is no way to know. The main thing we have to go on is the Bible, and that would be like using the Koran to prove what the Muslims say about Allah and Mohammed is correct. There simply isn't enough historical evidence outside of the Bible to make any determination about his marital status. |
|
Oh good God ETH! I've said it before and I'll say it again! This time, will you please get it through your thick freaking skull? Dan Brown completely misrepresented the Gnostics in his book. The "Gnostic Gospels" are not meant to be taken as literal history any more than the canonical gospels are. They're myths. They're metaphors. They're allegories. They are not competing histories. Do you have that? The knowledge found in the "Gnostic Gospels" can be found anywhere and often is. We don't have a corner the market. It is in every book, not just one. |
|
I beg to disagree. The cannonical gospels portray a very real person by the name of Jesus Christ who was the very real Divine Second Person of a very real Trinity dwelling in human flesh, and dying a very real death on the cross to purchase very real salvation for very real people like me. On the third day He literally arose from the dead in power and great glory, showed Himself to His beloved in a very real physical way (Luke records that He ate fish and honeycomb....Visions don't eat...) and then ascended to be at the right hand of The Father until the time has come for Him to literally return to this earth and reign. The 4 Gospels are a very real testimony of the very real Christ and are a 100% accurate portrayal of the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascention of Christ Jesus. The subsequent books are 100% accurate in recording the history of the early church and in the doctrine they teach. The gnostic texts are stories. The 4 Gospels and the rest of the New Testament writings are TRUTH. |
The Old Testament is truth as well. Remember that at the time Jesus was preaching sermons, the only scripture extant was the Old Testament. His Divinity was proven by the Old Testament. God's charachter is revealed to a great extent in the Old Testament. The OT is truth as well. Without the OT there is no New Testament. |
'That'll be the day!' ~ Ethan Edwards (John Wayne, The Searchers, 1956.
Phillip the Fair played 'a major part in the removal of the death of Pope Boniface VII'???!! What the dickens does that mean? Of course, during the 'French captivity' of the Papacy, any French King would have had tremendous influence over the Pope. But that was not the case in this instance! If you read the history of the Templars case, you will see that Pope Clement V tried all sorts of clever maneuvers to steer the Templars out of and away from the French King's hands. What then occurred was significant. At the time when it appeared that Pope Clement V would be successful in obtaining trials for the Templars under the aegis of the Church, Phliip and his legal advisor, Nogaret de Plaisians, set up a senational case against the Bishop of Troyes, accusing him of witchcraft by the secret testimony of a mysterious conspirator named Noffo Dei. It will later be determined that Noffo Dei lied, but not before the Bishop is publicly accused of sodomy, sacrilege, and usury - the sames crimes as the Templars! This was the 'shot across the bow' that the Pope finally understood...and having obtained jurisdiction over the Templars meekly returned it to the French King. NOW, the issue here is NOT the meekness of the captive Pope, but the author of 'The DaVinci Code' and his assertion that the Pope was anxious to break the backs of the Templars to 'hide' the 'Sang Real' documents and suppress this 'history.' As we know from HISTORY, this was NOT the case, was it? So much for the transparent foolishness of Brown and those who suckle from his dishonest teat!
That is the history, yes.
Baloney! The Pope never ordered any Orders to do any such thing!
Whatever.
It would have been very possible for Phillip to do just as he did with the Templars. He would, however, only have succeeded in ruining them in France, but with the Pope being beaten in the matter, he succeeded in having the Order 'suppressed' in most of Europe.
The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose, and men can misquote and erroneously recall history for their own purposes, as well.
Yes, there is. Read the Bible. Who was the wife of Moses? What was the name of Abraham's wife? Who was the wife of St. Peter? Did St. Paul have a wife? It is clear from the Holy Scriptures that Jesus Christ was unmarried during his lifetime.
You do NOT have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of the Living God, in order to know if He was married or not. We 'know' that Mohammad was married to at least four women during his lifetime, the last being 9 years old when the wedding was consumated. There are simply no contemporaneous accounts or traditions of Jesus Christ being married, at all! None. And the author of the DaVinci Code trying to say that the 'Gnostic' gospels tell us otherwise is pure fantasy! Read those books and you will find NO MARRIAGE of Jesus mentioned, at all! Not even hinted at, by any of the pseudographic authors of those un-cannonical books!
Sorry, but the Holy Bible IS history and will confirm that Jesus Christ was never married. 'He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.' Isaiah 53:8 'Declaring someone's generation' is an act that children would do for a deceased parent! They would say, 'I am the son of so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, etc.' Without another generation, someone 'cut off' from the land of the living, would have no one to declare his or her generation! Such as the apocryphal 'Sarah' in these 'gnostic' stories! Again, read the Bible for all answers to every question in life. Its the 'owners's manual' for mankind. Eric The(WiseAndBelieving)Hun
|
| Saw it, twice so I didn't miss anything. Safest place to hide something is in plain sight. The premise makes sense and it is well within the bounds of the Catholic church to change and rewrite history for their own purposes especially at a time when most people would simply take their word for it. There are those that say free and unfettered public access to the Vatican basement would reveal alot. |
If I were you, I would beat my head against a wall over the final verse in the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas'! Look at the 'exquisite' language of this so-called saying of Jesus: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." Wow! What idiocy! What scurrilous language to put into the Mouth of the Saviour! "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven. So, the same Saviour of Mankind and Womakind Who 'spake as no man ever spake' went from using the beautiful language found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John into this ? I think not! Let's simply look at what we know Jesus to have said about this subject: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30 That is what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of Heaven - there would be neither male nor female in Heaven. But the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas' sounds like something from the Koran! Pure unadulterated nonsense! And something that only someone tragically unfamiliar with the True Sayings of Jesus could ever swallow! Tsk, tsk, tsk! The Lord has given you One Faith, and you childishly try and create another! Eric The(OnlyAdultInTheRoom)Hun
|
A lot of Christians nowadays and I suppose a lot of non-Christians make the simple and common mistake of thinking that the Roman Church is the be-all and end-all of Christianity and its glorious History! It is most assuredly NOT! When Vasco de Gama and the other Portugese explorers landed on the Indian subcontinent beginning around the end of the 15th Century, they were amazed to find large Christian Churches and Christian believers! The only thing really odd about these Christians was simply - they didn't know who or what the 'Pope' was! Think 'Chaldean' Christian! Think 'Coptic' Christian! Think 'Armenian' Christian! Think 'Thomasian' Christian! Yet, NONE of the older branches of Christianity invested themselves with any 'gnostic' thoughts or doctrines. None considered anything 'Canonical' other than the same 27 books of the New Testament! Christianity may have been split geographically, but it was NOT split spirtually, nor doctrinally. There were no heretical beliefs in any of these ancient, yet widely dispersed, Churches! So, guess again! Eric The(Historical)Hun
|
w00t Everyone loves lesbians. |
| But where did these splits occur? Was it before or after the fall of the Roman empire? These cannonical documents were accumulated under Rome at first. Given that the early christians were a sect of Jews, then part of the Roman empire with a later split. When did these other branches of Christianity form or forget the Pope? I would bet that it was some time after the fall of Rome. |
|
Was Jesus Married? Darrell L. Bock Ph.D. Darrell L. Bock is Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. He also serves as Professor for Spiritual Development and Culture for the Seminary's Center for Christian Leadership. His special fields of study involve hermeneutics, the use of the Old Testament in the New, Luke-Acts, the historical Jesus, and gospels studies. As well as being a corresponding editor for 'Christianity Today' and past President of the Evangelical Theological Society, Bock serves as an elder at Trinity Fellowship Church in Richardson, Texas, where he lives with his wife, Sally, and their three children. It has long been believed that Jesus was single. Every detail of Scripture indicates this. When He was in ministry, there is no mention of a wife. When He was tried and crucified, there is no mention of his having a wife. After His death, there is no mention of a wife. Whenever Jesus' family is referred to, it is His brothers and sisters who are mentioned, but never a wife. Nor is there any indication that He was widowed. Attempts to suggest that any of the many women associated with His ministry were, in fact, His wife are empty speculation. This includes the woman with the alabaster container who anointed Jesus (read Luke 7:36-50). This woman's act was shocking and would not have been nearly so surprising had she been His wife. We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if He had been married. It is often suggested that because Jesus was a teacher and functioned like a rabbi that He would have been married as well, since that was the Jewish custom. Sometimes it is noted that the apostles called Him 'rabbi' (Mark 11:21). However, two factors make this argument weak. First, Jesus was not technically a rabbi, nor did He portray Himself as one. The apostles addressed Him as such to say he was their teacher, not because he held any kind of official Jewish office. The Jews asked Jesus 'by what authority' He did certain things because He did not hold any kind of formal office within Judaism. He did not have an official position that would have permitted Him to do things like act within the temple (Mark 11:28). As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, Jesus had no recognized role within Judaism. Read another view on whether Jesus acted as a rabbi. Second, the example of the call to be 'eunuchs for the kingdom' appears, in part, to be rooted in Jesus' own commitment and example not to be married (Matthew 19:10-12). In fact, the rationale for the Roman church's later view that priests should not be married partially stems from the view that Jesus was not married. So if we ask what the hard evidence is that Jesus was married, there really is a very short answer. There is none. So why remain single? What advantage is there to this? In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul elaborated on Jesus' theme about 'eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.' Paul expressed his preference that people remain single. Paul explained that the present time of distress, by which he meant the difficulty of life until Jesus returns, made being single better when it came to serving the kingdom. The married person must worry about the affairs of earth: how to care for his wife and, by implication, his family. The unmarried person can serve the Lord without such distraction (1 Cor. 7:27-35). Nevertheless, Paul also made it clear this was a choice, not a command: "But if you marry, you do not sin." (7:28). Paul himself chose to remain single, probably for the very reasons he suggests in 1 Corinthians 7. He understood, as Jesus did, that others were not called to be single (1 Cor 7:1-7). Traditions encouraging a dedicated single life also existed elsewhere in Judaism. Members of the ascetic Jewish sect of the Essenes were known for their emphasis on celibacy (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5.21; Jewish War 2.8.2.121-122; Philo, Hypothetica 11.14-18). At Qumran, most appear to have been celibate, although a Dead Sea Scroll about the community suggests some possibility (1QSa 1:4-10) of marriage, woman, and children in the messianic times. For those Essenes at Qumran, the point of remaining single was also dedication to God. So Jesus was single. His marital status was one dimension of His dedication to God. At least, that is how many Jews would have understood it. As Jesus faced rejection, it was of benefit that He did not have a wife or children. These are likely some of the concerns Paul alluded to in speaking of "worry for earthly things." Jesus had a singular focus on preaching the kingdom of God, and His choice to be single underscored that calling. This article appeared originally on www.beliefnet.com. All rights reserved. That's pretty much the orthodox view on this blasphemous question. Eric The(AlwaysOrthodox)Hun
|
well that would be because they werent catholic, but were part of a different branch of christianity. And you do find those sects of christianity that do teach different things for instance sacrements some have four instead of seven, and preach predestination whereas others dont ETA: and if it wasnt why did the reformation (both) come about? |
When was the Malabar Coast of India a part of the Roman Empire? All of these sects flourished while the 'Bishop of Rome' was merely another 'bishop' in a large city, having no special position in the Christian community at large! They didn't 'forget' the Pope, they never knew a 'Pope' or had a 'Pope'! Surely you don't think the Greek or Eastern Orthodox Churches give obedience to the Bishop of Rome? They never did, and never will! The Armenians have long prided themselves on being a 'Christian' nation for a longer period of time than Italy! They claim to have been Christian since 306 AD! Well before the Romans, either East or West!! Armenians claim that Tiridates III (A.D. 238-314) was the first ruler to officially Christianize his people, his conversion predating the conventional date of Constantine the Great's personal acceptance of Christianity on behalf of the Roman Empire! That the Roman Church was the preeminent Christian Church in Christendom cannot be denied. To say that it was the only Church, or represented Christianity in toto, is simply wrong!
You would lose such a bet! Eric The(Historical)Hun
|
I don't know exactly when the splits occurred, but most of those ancient churches have Apostolic Succession, which means they were founded by actual apostles of Christ. With most, the splits were more due to geographic isolation than anything. Except for the Eastern Orthodox Church, which refused to recognize the Pope. |
And when a Muslim makes a claim and tells me to read the Koran, should I take his advice? There is a clear difference between things you believe out of faith and things you can prove. No one can prove Jesus was or was not married. If you believe in the bible, then you probably believe Jesus was never married. For those not of the Christian faith its usually a matter of complete disinterest. Some want to know because they are interested in the study of religion itself. Others are interested in the hero figure in mythology through the ages. Unfortunately it is also a matter of interest to people with an axe to grind. They use it as a weapon to attack those of faith. I think thats a horrible misuse of the historical method and totally neglects the spiritual side of humanity. Hun, if some egg head showed you incontrovertible proof that Jesus did not rise from the dead in bodily form, would you accept it? I would hope not. Whether the resurrection happened is immaterial to the idea that God loves us so much he sent his only son to earth to redeem us. That belief has a power all its own, regardless of the truth (little t) of the matter. The Truth (big T) is much more important. |
If it has to do with whether or not the founder of that particular religion was married or not, I would say...read it! There's nothing secularly crucial about the question 'Was Jesus married?' It's merely a subterfuge of sorts to make Christians and others believe that the New Testament is hiding things that would ordinarily be placed in connection with the personal story of the Founder of their Faith! What would a biography of, say, George Washington be worth IF it never mentioned Martha Custis Washington ever?
There would be no reason to think that Jesus was married unless there was some other purpose being served by alleging that He was! Even the 'Gnostic' gospels, upon which these folks base such an assertion say nothing of any wedding! They are simply making 'history' out of whole cloth.
Cool! Let's hope that non-Christians have better things to do with their time and energies!
Then let them understand they will NEVER have an answer, IF the answer is not wholly apparent to them in the first place!
Then let them mythological personages, not historical ones!
Indeed, it is just another hammer of Lucifer to try and chip away at the Foundations of Christianity! Sort of a, 'Was Lincoln homosexual', for the Christians of this day.
Of course not, for all the evidence adduced shows that it is precisely what happened!
Sorry, but if there was NO RESURRECTION, then there would be no Christianity at all. The same eleven figures of the Apostles fleeing into the night, when the Saviour was seized at the Garden of Gethsemene, would be the very last that we should ever hear about that poor misguided Galilean and His mottly crew...except for the fact that little more than 50 days thereafter, these very same eleven men were openly preaching a Resurrected Christ in the very Temple where His murderers were still in power! What could have led such easily-scared rabbits into such a brave and yet foolhardy course of action? What would have compelled 10 of those original 11 witnesses to the Truth, all rather ordinary and unexceptional men, to suffer cruel and outrageous deaths and yet not confess their erroneous belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Such a confession would have saved them and most likely placed them in very comfortable positions of wealth and fame...and yet NONE chose that simple and expedient path! Why? Mass delusion? I think not. They simply saw the Risen Saviour and believed. And they believed with an intensity that all of the instruments of torture and means of death available to both Jewish and Roman authorities did not break them of their belief in what they saw and witnessed! Nor did it still their voices!
Having witnessed all of what had encompassed the Life of Jesus on earth, these 11 witnesses were far beyond the power of mere 'belief', but had come into the Glorious Sunshine of the Knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ! That Knowledge is something worth dying for, indeed! And His Church has thought so ever since! Eric The(LedByTheSpirit)Hun
|
Do you have any conception of what that really means? I don't think you do at all. Nor are you willing to entertain anything other than your own narrow thinking. But, that's okay. You don't need to. It's not required. For those willing to listen, the above passage kind of goes with this one: They said to him, Then shall we enter the kingdom as babies? Yeshua said to them, When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in the place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter the kingdom. Thomas 22 Please forgive any typos. They're mine. I don't have this stuff on my comp for easy copy and pasting. |
|
The reason I watched the program, then decided not post about it, is that if I did, the over zealous Christians such as you ETH would just say "How can you just base all your beliefs on a bunch of theories!?!?!?!" Which is exactly like your beliefs of the Bible, which is also a collection of tales. None of the tales can be proven, unless you have access to time travel. (Walking on water, etc, all the rest) Since you decide to attack my theories and call them false because your theories dont agree with them, I decide to forgo the merry-go-round of "Im right" "No, Im right" with you, because it gets nowhere, and you just annoy me with it. With that said, *Leaves thread* You can IM me if oyu want to talk about it personally, I dont want to waste my time with the thread. |
|
I didn't see the program though the issue of the Desposyni has been of interest to me for some time. I agree with those who say that there is not enough evidence to reasonably know whether or not Jesus had descendents or not. As far as beliefs, well they don't require as much evidence, so I suppose there's sufficient evidence to believe whatever one wants. Given all the evidence I've heard, I find it more reasonable to believe that whatever historical personage may have served as the kernal of the Jesus myth, he probably procreated whether he was married, as we use the term, or not. If there were a historical Jesus, I suspect he would have been the priest to Miriam the Magdalene who would have been the priestess, rather like Simon Magnus and Helen. This may have been a bit of religion that Jesus and his family borrowed from the cult of Serapis when they left Egypt. Sexuality between the priest and priestess in the hieros gamos might have been part of the ritual. If there are folks around today who can convince others that they are the biological descendents of the historical Jesus, I suspect the first persons to get really excited about the claim would be some Christians who would see the restoration of this family to the throne of Jerusalem in the reconstructed Temple as either the second comming of the Christ or the rule of the Antichrist. I would regard them as simply shrewed operators looking for an easy gig by playing off the beliefs others hold about their remote ancestor. Personally I would regard them as neither particularly Divine nor Demonic. I see no evidence that there has ever been any historically Divine or Demonic people to included whatever person may have been the historical Jesus. The Christ myth preexisted any historical Jesus and would exist whether Jesus ever existed or not. Myth doesn't have to be historical, in fact it's probably better that way. |
Post from hydgirl -
Quite frankly, I don't have any idea at all what this so-called saying of Jesus means! And I doubt that you or anyone else who dreams that the Gospel of Thomas was divinely inspired does either! Let's hear your take on it Primadonna! Tell us how you can reconcile what the Jesus of the Gospels said about sexuality in the Kingdom of Heaven with what this fellow who coincinetally is named Jesus, says in Verse 114 of the Gospel of Thomas!
I don't. It makes no sense whatsoever, but then nothing in the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas' makes much sense.
My own narrow thinking is the end result of 2,000 years of accepted, tested, retested, and accepted teaching of the Christian Church. Yours is...what? A New Age adoption of what no one in their right mind would consider authoritative in any Christian Church or denomination.
Thanks, I'm not much good at accepting Islamic Doctrine either!
That is so absurd! Nowhere in the Four Gospels of the Holy Bible, do you find Jesus speaking such gibberish! Explain how such a ridiculous teaching of that could be explained to the typical Jewish convert of the First Century! God that is awful to the ears, and unsettling to the mind!
It would take more than mere typos to explain how stupid that verse sounds! I trust you to regurgitate such pap accurately. But that's your problem, a correct rendition of tripe is still tripe. No wonder Gnosticism died out so quickly in the Early Church! It had none of the allure and beauty of True Chrsitianity! Eric The(Believing)Hun
|
Actually I missed it. But they'll show it again I'm sure. |
You asked for it, sport. We live in dichotomy. Even you cannot deny that. Up-down, left-right, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, night day, good evil. We experience one thing only in relation to its opposite. Without evil, there could be no good. Without night, there could be no day. So on and so forth, you get the idea. This is demonstrated from the Garden of Eden on. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they learned not only the differences between each other, but also the difference between themselves and God (or that's one way to interpret it. YMMV) The passages you and I both quoted are not absurd when viewed in this context. God does not exist in dichotomy. God is everything and nothing, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, and everything in between. How can we "enter the kingdom" where everything is whole and united when we are not? You really should get your mind out of the gutter, ETH. This isn't about sex or sexuality. It's about unity. It's about the marriage of opposites to create a whole. This really isn't difficult stuff. I should whip out "Thunder: Perfect Mind" You'd foam at the mouth, I think. hehe. |
Post from hydgirl:
This better be good! At least a helluva lot better than that limp-azzed 'scripture' you included above!
How so? Let's see this dichotomy. Explain why there are only two sides.
I don't have to deny it. I never said it. You did. Please explain and defend your insight.
No, not at all. There are gradations of everything under the Sun. Up-down? Sideways! Left-right? Cantered!
Really? There is never any situation in which only one thing may be experienced and never another thing?
How about a wee bit evil, or a tad bit good? There could easily have been a world, or even a situation in which only good existed. Or where only evil existed. In Judeo-Christian Doctrine, Hell would be a place where ONLY evil existed, and Heaven a place of ONLY good.
No dawning, no twilight?
No, I don't. Not at all.
How so?
They only learned that to break God's law was an evil thing that cost them dearly. They understood nothing more. They learned nothing more.
The passage I quoted from the so-called Gospel of Thomas was a ludicrous attempt to show that the Jesus described in that Gnostic work, thought that females and Heaven did not quite jibe, and that Mary would have to 'become' as a male in order to enter Heaven! The Jesus of the Gospels, said it entirely differently, and much more cogently! In Heaven, such earthly aspects as 'male' and 'female' have no place, whatsoever!
Nor does His creature, Man.
Explain how God is 'nothing'! You must be speaking of a different God than that spoken of in Judeo-Christian Doctrine. So which 'god' are you referring to in this statement?
Well, that first part is specifically said of the Messiah, but what does this 'everything in between' mean? Nowehere does He claim to be 'everything in between', so upon what are you basing this assertion?
Because the Master of the Kingdom of Heaven says to us that we can enter! It's as simple as that! When the Lord says, 'Come up here and be with Me, forever', whatever 'dichotomy' you may see means nothing to Him, does it?
Oh yeah, it's my mind that's in the gutter! Yeah, hold that thought close to your bosom, if it comforts you in some strange manner!
Really? So, it's not about a Wedding of the Christ on earth? So, it's not about Mary Magdalene, the unmentioned 'High Priestess' and consort of the Messiah? So, it's not about the birth of this alleged daughter named 'Sarah' and her mother's flight with her from Judea, to Egypt, and thence to the South of France? Did you even see this show? I know that you have read 'The DaVinci Code', and are familiar with 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'! But this thread has nothing to do with 'sex and sexuality'???!! Talk about willfully naive!
So, Christ needed an earthly bride to be complete? Where do you find that in the Gospels of the New Testament? Hell, where do you find that in the so-called 'Gnostic' gospels?
Again, Christ needed something in order to be complete? So much for the 'Alpha and Omega', huh?
No, it isn't at all. It's the stuff of children. Very, very young children.
"For I am knowledge and ignorance. I am shame and boldness. I am shameless; I am ashamed. I am strength and I am fear. I am war and peace. Give heed to me. I am the one who is disgraced and the great one." I don't think that I would foam at the mouth at all. I have read poetry for most of my ife. This is just bad poetry. And extremely bad religion. Eric The(WiseBeyondHisEars)Hun
|
|
God Himself is not contradictory in nature. He is not some zen idea of balance. God is not even genderless, as the Bible consistently refers to Him as a He. God is altogether good, and absolutely not evil. God is altogether just, and absolutely above corruption. God is absolutes, not contradictions. |
I didn't say they were about any wedding of Christ on Earth. I questioned you about how such verses, or any of the so-called 'Gnostic' gospels supported the idea of a supposed Wedding of Christ on Earth! That verse 114 from the so-called 'Gospel of Thomas' is the piece de resistance of the entirety of the so-called 'Gnostic' gospels, and, as such, it falls so flat on the Christian's ear, and so dull and uninspiring to the Christians's mind, that any one who can rightfully claim to 'know' Jesus, knows that this is most definitely NOT His Voice! To Pagan ears, and to shallow and easily impressed minds, it may appear otherwise, but not to those who know Jesus. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:26-28 Yes, indeed, His sheep hear His Voice. And NO Christian Church of any distinction or standing has ever accepted the 'Gospel of Thomas' as containing the Very Words of Christ.
Yes, I did quite well with it throughout college and law school! My colleagues even nowadays remark frequently on my demonstrated ability to restate the difficulty and tedious in more easily understood language. Too bad I have never been able to accomplish this with you. But, then, are you really trying to understand this stuff? Or are you simply attempting to achieve some distinction of contrariness? Just wondering aloud..... Eric The(NoNeedToAnswer)Hun
|
|
I'd like to start off by saying this, I have no problem with religion, I have problems with so-called "religious people". I read the book, liked it a lot. really had a hard time putting it down. I also watched the show this thread is related to. Liked that as well, it answered some questions for me and showed me some of the places the book talked about. Pretty cool stuff. But it's hardly the basis for redefining modern Christianity. Afterall, it says very clearly on the cover, right underneath the title "A Novel." Webster's defines "novel" as "an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events"....Invented Prose Narrative ie. NOT FUCKING REAL. Like the Easter Bunny. Funny how questioning what's commonly accepted, even in a fictional work, causes such a stir. I believe that Jesus Christ was something special, I believe that he continues to do great things through the church. I do not however, believe that he was born to a virgin mother, walked on water, or crawled outta the grave. I don't believe that, but if you want to, fine...who am I to question you. Afterall, none of us know and that's bottom line. Your Mileage May Vary, Mine Doesn't. |
|
Never read Da Vinci's code.............not sure that I want to.Semi-historical fiction has never tickled my fancy to any great extent.Ive read most of Holy Blood,Holy Grail,but put it down months ago.After finishing the two books Im reading now,I will start it over again. One thing most people miss is the "Code" is fiction.Period.No more accurate about history than "The Dirty Dozen" was about WWII. The book HolyBlood HolyGrail is explained from the beginning quite clearly that it is filled with speculations and hypothisis..............food for thought. Much like the Holy Bible that so many"Christains" swear is the end all truth and final word on all things great and small.Anyone with an above average knowledge of either the Bible or Grail can easily point out flaws/accuracys in EITHER..........and Eric the (beat this issue till it's paste and re-state/re-word it until you see it my way or give up) Hun,your law schooling does the same for you as it does for most lawyers,and thats give you the training and ability to talk discussions into circles,twist theories into fact and confuse those that lack the desire/ability to cut/paste scripture and avoid the whole 'prove it' factor.You are good at what you do,dont get me wrong.You excell at the whole 'Pro-Jeasus' argument,and talk a good talk, but in the end ,you still lack a reasonable explanation for the questions most doubters pose. In the end,I usually end up getting (from numerous bible-thumpers)something to the effect of "For those that need it explained,there can be no explanation" type of blow-off.  Faith IS a powerful thing.(UltraB rolls his eyes) I saw the end of the show "Beyond the DaVinci Code". I had thought at first (when I saw the listing in the TV guide) that it was the same ABC produced show that was promoted on 20/20 and then also shown on Nat Geo channel,but was pissed when I saw it wasnt ,and missed most of it. Like was mentioned before.........it WILL be on again.The 20/20 show was a big dissapointment and seemed like the show was only a plug for the book.It revealled nothing new,................but it did have alot of neato pictures and erie music  At least it showed me the propper pronunciation of the names/places Id been reading about ,and put faces to the authors of the 'Holy Blood,Holy Grail' and 'Mesianic Legacy" books Ive been reading. |
Cant you see them???
I know of the flaws in 'The DaVinci Code', but I am unaware of any in the Bible. Suppose that you could help me with your above average knowledge of, let's say, the New Testament, and show me these obvious flaws. I would be ever so grateful, if you would be so kind.
Yes'sm?
I was quite good at all that prior to going to law school, I can assure you. My family can vouch for my obstinancy and argumentativeness, as can my numerous friends. Did I say 'numerous'? Nay, 'innumberable'! Apparently, they don't take my obstinancy and argumentativeness so seriously, as some.
I do what I can with what little the Lord has given me.
What questions? Please restate these serious questions and let's see what we can do with them! I try and use a bit of human wisdom to entice folks to see the more rational explanations of what happened on this Good Earth in the first several decades of this Christian world. There is a reason that the entire world divides history between that which occurred before the Birth of a Child in Bethlehem, in Judea, in very humble surroundings and circumstances, and that which occurred afterwards. This fellow Jesus is a Man (to quote Josephus, 'If it be lawful to call such, a man'), that has stood the world on its collective ear and has compelled more acts of mercy, compassion, and charity, than all the other world's religions combined!
Sorry, but there are some things that defy a rational human explanation. As a humanist, that may offend you, but, then that poor philosophy offers absolutely no explanation for anything! Much less everything! And yet, Christians are asked to give an account for everything that occurs. Both then and now! Secular humanists can run and hide behind 'That's just the way the world is', and think themselves unchallenged. But they are not. They merely refuse to see the challenges! Why do innocent children die? What does the Lord say? Huh? Huh? What does He say about why that occurs? Well, whatever the Lord may say, it does appear that your 'Mother Nature' is, likewise, quite the Bitch, ain't she?
Yes, it is. In those first several decades of this 'Christian Era', it was truthfully said to have overturned the world. And indeed it has.
Sorry, I wasn't around to goad you into watching it.
Cool! Remember to have a pencil and a pad of paper nearby and write down the number of times that the words 'fallacy' and 'fiction' are used. It amazed me no end, that even Richard Leigh, one of the co-authors of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' was smacking the author of 'The DaVinci Code' around for taking liberties with the truth and makinf factual assertions where there was no basis for doing so. 'Priory of Sion'! Baloney!
Neato pics and eerie music are the highpoints of any discussion of this fictional matter.
You need to get out more. And read from a better library. Eric The(FarReaching)Hun
|
it would take that long to read it all..... but it would be well worth it, a historians dream  . Think of the things one could learn from the thousands of years of knowledge contained within..... Id love it
|
Don't like this sort of stuff, eh? Well, simple Christianity is the very essence of what has compelled Western Civilization to the highest achievements in human endeavor in the history of mankind! It is the one great motivating factor behind the settlement and political development of these United States and these collective 'halucinations' have been the propellant for the Founding Fathers, and of every single US President from the first George W. to the present George W. What a magnificient collection of mental patients! I, for one, am as pleased as punch to be on the 'inside' of this very peculiar mental institution, suffering from the very same mental afflictions as those that may have motivated such diverse luminaries as Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee! Whose yo' daddy? Eric The(UnabashedAmericanExceptionalist)Hun
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.