"San greal" = holy grail
"Sang real" = royal blood; the bloodline of Jesus.
Just a typographical error in French... [:O]
I actually don't think He did. I get my ideas with the way that Paul talks about sex. Yes, it is ok that you have sex so long as it is done in the proper spirit and method. But, he also says that it would be better not to if you are able to clear your thoughts of the carnal. If you have that bonding with a woman then you are responsible for the "oneness" you create with that person. As far as I can tell the only Oneness Jesus ever talks about is the oneness He has with the Father. So therefore in my mind Jesus was totally committed to that oneness He had with the Father. If He were to have sex with a woman, then He would be responsible for that oneness and not have His entire being centered on the Oneness He had with the Father. The only way that I think He could have had sex on this earth and still be in total Oneness with the Father is if the woman He was with was also in complete Oneness with the Father. This would mean in my mind that the woman would have to be PERFECT like Jesus was perfect. I see this as being unlikely since the bible never mentions such a person.
I would also be careful about saying Jesus would like a good F...
Perverse speech is not a fruit of the Spirit (just a friendly reminder)
God bless,
PF
I believe he did. In the Gospel of Mary from the Nag Hammadi library, when Peter is tormenting Mary and accusing her of lying to them after the Risen Christ departed, Levi repremands Peter and says something like, "the Savior knew her well."
Coming from such a traditional and conservative lifestyle, they wouldn't have spoken about sex the way we talk about sex today. For a man to "know" a woman meant that they had an intimate relationship. Elsewhere, it is stated that she was his "companion" which is a reference to a marriage of a man and woman.
I actually have a new topic I am going to post that relates somewhat to this in the context of this relationship and the forming of the church, a little off topic from this though.
--Kerri
After studying the issue for many years now, I am of the opinion that the whole line of gnostic tradition about Mary Magdalene and Jesus being married and having offspring was simply an attempt to "gnosticize" Jesus. In other words, the various gnostic groups at the time of Jesus wove him into their mythos in a way that would "legitimize" their existence. Thus, the gnostic archtypes are projected onto Jesus and Mary Magdalene, regardless of any historical veracity or factual basis.
As to the "royal bloodline" of Jesus that we read so much about these past few years, I believe much the same thing happened (i.e., if I claim to be descended from Jesus, I have "legitimized" my claim to "divine aristocracy.") Jesus made it clear that his "kingdom" what not of this world (i.e., it was of a spiritual nature), when his disciples thought, as other Jews of the time did, that Messiah would drive out the Romans and re-establish an earthly throne.
Yeh, go ahead and reply that the "Roman Church/State, etc." supressed the "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, .... If that is the case, why do the Eastern Orthodox churches, like the Syrian or Indian Orthodox rites, hold to essentially the same "orthodox" teachings of the Roman Church? The Syrian Othodox church in Antioch was founded by Peter and The Malankara Orthodox Church was founded in Kerala, India, by St. Thomas the Apostle around AD 52. These churches remained autonomous from the beginning, meaning they were never "Roman." Yet, amazingly (or maybe not so amazingly), their foundational beliefs are almost identical to Roman Catholic beliefs and their sacraments are the same seven as the Roman Church!
Some food for thought.
Did Jesus have sex? No, I don't believe so. Not because sex is "evil," but rather that the sexual act is reserved for use within the context of marriage and family, and I don't believe Jesus was married. Was Jesus "sexual?" Of course ... we are all sexual beings and sexuality pervades our human nature. But one can embrace their sexuality while being celibate. In fact, that is the only TRUE celibacy that harnesses the sexual vitality, lifts it up in love to a higher vibration and performs great works of charity.
You really think Jesus knocked a few off? Wow, what if we could locate some of his sperm and clone him..
There's a thought (with all due respect of course)
Hm, well, I personally never actually saw Jesus have sex, so I can't be certain.
I think with that statement, TheAlphaOmega has nailed this whole argument(no pun intended, or maybe it was, you'll just have to guess [;)])!
One day we might be able to ask "those involved" this very question, but I've the feeling when that day comes, it really won't matter to us one way or the other, and the question will likely go un-asked.
James.
ummm... errrr..aaaaaahhh...yeeeaaaaaahhhh... a'hem.
I think probably (and I mean a strong PROBABLY) not and if he did want us to know whether he did, it would have been as painfully clear as the miracles he performed and the truth he spoke. Jesus had nothing to hide so if he did have relations with Mary (or any other woman) don't you think he would have said so?
I mean, asking this question is similar to asking if Jesus smoke pot!!! I mean, it seems to "help" people get in touch spiritually and it's a natural plant and widely debated, created by God... RIGHT? The question itself makes me want to take a shower (to wash off the visual I get, it's kind of spookie).
Other than that, without asking Jesus directly, I don't think there is a right/wrong answer to this one.
Blissful
quote:
Jesus had nothing to hide so if he did have relations with Mary (or any other woman) don't you think he would have said so?
Well, perhaps the guy was a gentleman and didn't see the value of bragging around with his sex life? [;)]
Or maybe he thought it wasn't in any way relevant to what he was teaching?
2cents & L&L
Jouni
Sex, drugs and...Jesus? I wonder if he was into rock n roll too? No, seriously, I always always thought it was intersting that the Bible explains his birth and death in EXPLICIT detail but leaves out the majority of his life. In all likelihood he did experiment with sex and masturbation as an innocent human. As for pot, well, it's been around a long time, and will likely stay a lot longer.
Hmmm,
I don´t know if Jesus had sex or not. But i don´t think that really matters. If there didn´t exist something like sex, we wouldn´t be here. i don´t know who ever came to the conclusion sex is bad.
Sex is good, imagine yourself: if sex was something not pleasureable, do you think a lot of children would be born?
I'm wit Narfellus in this matter.
The idea that Jesus never had sex as based on him being the Son of God and the Bible never mentionnig such activity taking place.
But then again according to scripture he never took a dump either.
Does it matter in some way if he did or didn't?
2cents & L&L
Jouni
quote:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".
The only way I can see how someone might infer from that the assumption that Jesus was homosexual is that the interpreter himself is preoccupied with the idea.
I've spend any number of evenings ad nights stark nekkid with other guys talking metaphysics and I don't think I'm homosexual. But on occasion everyone present have been severely worse for alcohol so who know what may have happaned.
It puzzles me that many scholars are so interested in irrelevant things about Jesus and completely fail to see that the significant thing abou t him was what he taught not what he expressed as a human being. Perhaps it's easier to pick over the details because the actual challenge of following the teaching would seriously wreck our societal gearbox.
2cents & L&L
Jouni
My opinions of this topic are:
1.) Jesus was not crucified. He died of old age.
2.) He had 3 children with Lady Magydelena (mispelt)
3.) He was not married with her.
4.) The number of Jesus' descendents are approximately: 364,142.
5.) Yasser Arafat is one.
6.) Jesus had a father. His name was Tonatha and he was an 'acquintance' of Mary's.
7.) Mary was a member of the Essene Group.
8.) Jesus was born at 6AM.
9.) The 3 prophets were from Iran.
quote:
Originally posted by runlola
I have heard some say Jesus was a homosexual.
Some even say that is the real reason he was crucified.
<<clipped article>>
Was Jesus gay? We don't know. But it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. One version of St. Mark's gospel - which is still the subject of academic dispute - alludes to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a youth he raised from the dead.
According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".
The veracity of this manuscript is hotly contested by other Biblical scholars. This comes as no surprise. The revelation of a gay Jesus would undermine some of the most fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity, including its rampant homophobia.
But even if the text is genuine, does this ambiguous, elliptical passage offer evidence of Jesus's homosexuality? It is hard to say. The precise nature of the relationship between Christ and the youth is not spelled out. Sexual relations are suggested but not explicitly stated.
The Morton Smith document is, in fact, irrelevant to the vexed issue of Christ's sexual orientation. What we can say for certain is that the standard, accepted Biblical narrative gives us no information at all about Jesus's sexuality.
This absence of firm information does not, of course, mean that we can take it for granted that Christ was heterosexual. Far from it! The lack of information about his erotic inclinations begs more questions than it answers.
The truth is that we simply don't know whether Jesus was straight, gay, bisexual or celibate. There is certainly no evidence for the Church's unspoken presumption that he was either heterosexual or devoid of carnal desires. Since nothing in the Bible points to Christ having erotic feelings for women, or relationships with the female sex, the possibility of him being gay cannot be discounted.
In the absence of any evidence - let alone proof - that Jesus was heterosexual, the theological basis of Church homophobia is all the more shaky and indefensible. How can established religion dare denounce homosexuality when the founder of its faith was himself a man of mysterious, unknown sexuality who could, for all we know, have been homosexual?
The Bible tells us that Jesus was born a man and therefore presumably had male sexual feelings. It would have been more or less impossible, biologically, for him not to have an element of erotic arousal - even if only having the normal male response of waking with an erection.
Oh JESUS!
What is this???
Leave the man alone!
He was just a guy! Who cares whether he had sexual relationships! I mean, IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND ALL IMPORTANT MEN ARE NOT GAYS. SERIOUSLY, PLEASE!!!
I DON'T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO, WHILE SPEAKING OF ANCIENT PEOPLE (GREECE, ROME TOO) THE ONLY THING THEY SHOUT OUT LOUD IS: "THEY WERE GAYS!!!!"
And Lola, by the wa, there where lesbians too you know. Maybe mother Therese(or whatever) was a lesbian. Eh?
Actually, I don't care. I'm not a christian. So for all I care, the christian god may be a homosexual too.
Lola, do you think that God is a hetero or gay?[:D]
Actually,
I still didn't mean anything mean,
Forgive me and the best[;)],
Gwathren
quote:
I actually think he had to be celebate.
That's interesting because I would expect the complete opposite for the actions of 'advanced' souls.
Would someone who is spiritually advanced, enter the form of a species with 2 sexes and choose to never experience it?
Celebate?
In my opinion, ANY and I'm strongly voicing my thoughts here, person who would choose to enter 3D human-form and THEN choose to deny themselves sex, are disillusioned, confused, and full of backwards principles.
The higher-selves choose for a purpose, correct? Do you agree with me on that? If the higher-self chose a life of celebacy, then they would have chosen a race of hermaphrodites. Adrogynous.
If a person IS practicing celebacy, then it is either because they need to learn a lesson, they are an alien from another planet, or they are stuck within a formal institution of religious secessionists.
I disagree.
Sexual relations for the purpose of ejaculation is a release of energies for the purpose of procreation. That is how the majority of people relate to sex, and in this aspect of sex, it can be a negative supplement.
H-O-W-E-V-E-R, sexual relations are said to be the 'gift from the gods' because we forget the supreme nature of it. Sex can be done between two people that replenishes their energies, rockets them into unimaginable realms, and perhaps even attains them new abilities. To an advanced soul, he/she knows this; that sex is not a one-way road of losing/releasing energy, but rather that it can do the exact opposite. In such a world, a man would come home, notice his wife has the 'sniffles', and take her up to the bedroom to replenish her energies, strengthen her immunity, with no need for any Tylenol whatsoever. [:D]
I honestly think, runlola, that your perception in this matter is only focused on 'sex for procreation'.
The misconception on celebacy being a good thing is due to the misunderstanding/lack of awareness/ignorance of the many alternative forms of sex.
I personally think he ws married to Magdaline and she was pregnant with his child when he was crusified.
The Woman with the Alabaster Jar was written by a devout catholic woman. The more she looked into the relationship of Jesus and Magdeline, the more she felt betrayed by her own belief system. Here'a a review from a priest who read it and posted his impressions on Amazon.com:
I am very impressed with Margaret Starbird's scholarly work in her book "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar". It tells the story of the lost Bride and provides strong evidence for the sacred marriage at the heart of Christianity, that of Jesus and Mary Magdalen.
It is significant that all four Gospels record the anointing of Jesus by a woman with an alabaster jar of aromatic nard. In middle-eastern liturgical practices surrounding the ancient rites of the "sacred marriage" the anointing of the sacrificed bridegroom/king was a sacred ceremony reserved to his bride. The Gospel narratives describe the pre-nuptial anointing of Jesus by the woman with the alabaster jar and contain other elements from this ancient ritual.
On seven of eight New Testament lists of the women who walked with Jesus, Mary Magdalen's name is mentioned first on the list. She was clearly "first lady" in the eyes of the early Christian community. Some early Church theologians identified the Magdalen as the model of "church" (ekklesia) whom Christ "loved so much, that He gave his life for her."
More compelling facts from Scripture and history are included in Margaret Starbird's work. She follows a trail of evidence that leads through Egypt, to the south of France, and into important historical events in Europe.
Most significant is the medieval legend of the Holy Grail (sangraal), which secretly celebrated Mary Magdalen as the Bride of Christ. The "sangraal" is the "sacred blood" -- the royal lineage of Jesus. Because the legend of the Holy Grail contained and preserved the truth about Mary Magdalen, it was ruthlessly suppressed by the Inquisition. In an effort to discount her significance, Mary Magdalen was labeled a prostitute, but she was really the "Beloved" -- the bride of Jesus.
Restoring the sacred union of Jesus and Mary Magdalen to the heart of our Christian story provides us with a model of holiness based on the sacred union of the masculine and the feminine. It affirms the true holiness and significance of women as PARTNERS in the future practice of our Roman Catholic tradition.
I have talked with Margaret Starbird. When she embarked on her research, her intent was to disprove the possibility of Jesus' marriage, but the facts led her in a surprising new direction that provides a wonderful healing message for us all.
The Woman With The Alabaster Jar provides the facts and history that will explain why women hold the key to many of the problems faced today by our Roman Catholic Church.
Father John Shuster, Roman Catholic Priest
Have fun with it!
Kerri
hey, great topic! and runlola, how the HELL do you do that with the smileys??
Jesus the Gay, Mary the pregnant mother. I admit, this is stuff i've never thought about, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ultimately i don't suppose it really matters, but it is fun for speculation and debate, especially since i won't be offended by any outcome. I'll have to ask Jesus one day when i meet him what the real story was; then i'll post and let you all know...:)
quote:
how the HELL do you do that with the smileys??
go here... http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12682
Kerri
I just think that if you take all the commonly known knowledge of Jesus, minus some nifty quotes, and burnt them in the middle of the room, you'd still have the same amount of factual information remaining.
I think the Bible was made a couple centuries after Jesus and his acolytes. I think Christianity as it is now is not Christianity as was begun 2,000 years ago. The Romans called it an 'absurd superstition' yet what it is in common-day isn't what Romans would ever call that. I think Greek Enforcers wrote the bible as to use the support for Jesus and manipulate it into a text of manipulation for the purpose of mass-control.
So, with all of that said, I don't think many people really know much about Jesus to say he was 'celebate', 'gay', or anything of the sort.
The "Jesus was an alien" story is Nephalim/Nordic-related.
Anyways lola, you have just as much of a case to go the other way, so I respect that and I'll hush up because this stuff wont be settled until we meet up in the afterlife. [:D] Good ol' 5th Density.
Namaste.
AH! It's like magic! damnable smiley secrets...
I bought The Woman with the Alabaster Jar today and wanted to post an excerpt from the foreword written by Rev. Terrance A. Sweeney, Ph.D. for this thread. I understand that this is a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence, but none the less, it is definite food for thought. This is from page XVI in the foreword:
The Jewish Scholar Ben-Chorin presents a "chain of indirect proofs" to support his belief that Jesus was married. In the time Jesus walked the earth, Judaism regarded marriage as a fulfillment of God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply." Luke 2:51-52 indicates that Jesus, living under the authority of his parents, "grew in wisdom, stature, and favor before God and men." Ben-Chorin argues that it would have been quite likely that Jesus' parents, as was the custom, would have sought out a suitable bride for him, and that Jesus, like every young man, especially those who studied the Torah, would have married. Moreover, if Jesus had not been married, he most certainly would have been reproached for this omission by those Pharisees who opposed him. And Saint Paul, in presenting reasons for supporting celibacy, would undoubtedly have cited Jesus' own life, had Jesus been celibate. But Saint Paul did not. Therefore, Ben-Chorin concludes, Jesus was married.
Have fun!!
Kerri
I've only just started (haven't even finished the first chapter) but it illudes thusfar to the political scene being very volatile and that if the marriage were not kept secret, that the entire holy family would have been executed. It talks of there also being political reasons for the marriage and that Mary M. (also known as Mary of Bethany and the sister of Lazarus) was of the House of Benjamin and Jesus was of the House of David (which we all know) both had royal family lineage.
Here's an excerpt:
He must choose his bride from the tribe of Benjamin, for it was written in the first book of the Torah that the silver chalice was hidden in the sac of Benjamin. According to their inspired teachers, this meant that a woman from Benjamin's tribewould be the instrument for the reconciliation and the healing of Israel.
in another portion:
... the jealous hatred of Herod Antipas, so insecure on his throne that he could tolerate no rival. And the Romans too; they feared an insurrection of the Jewish nation. The hatred of the Jews for the Roman forces of occupation was intense, and their love and enthusiasm for the Son of David who had been so brutally executed could kindle a revolution at any moment...
This to me would explain why they may have wanted to keep it a secret. Jesus knew that he would be executed. He also knew that his family would be killed in order to cease his bloodline if it were known that there was a royal bloodline and a bride. This would further crush the hopes of the Israelites.
Kerri
Hahahaha, you´ve got a point there runlola [:D][:D][:D]! Maybe it´s like going to heaven and come back again[;)]?
My sentiments EXACTLY!![:D][;)][:D]
Another take on the Jesus and marriage conspiracy is that the early church, in their efforts to "create" the bible and the shape of christianity, wanted to make Jesus as non-human as possible. In other words, to put him on a pedestal to be worshipped and awed and sought after, for his ways were immpecable and the birthright of God. Thus, we have the start of his life and the end, but the middle parts, well, these were very normal and human, and would have led people to believe he might be "less than divine." Yes, i believe he had sex. He MUST have known the connection between sexuality and spirituality, and more importantly known that abuse and overindulgence in sex would have been just as bad as getting drunk every night. (let me add that wine was one of the few ways to purify water from parasites, thus its prolific useage throughout the ages).
I see why the church did what they did, but it has had a profound, centuries long impact on the views of christianity. I'm going to tell my parents about the missing books of bible and see if they crap themselves. They'll probably think i'm a heathen or something, but they need a little enlightenment. The Bible's great, it's core lessons of love are as applicable today as 2000 years ago, BUT BUT BUT New Age spirituality is a mandatory expansion to its lessons, not to replace, but to expound and enhance the teachings in ways earlier generations never knew possible.
How can a myth have sex? Unless of course it was written that the fictional character called Jesus did have sex.
I'm probably rubbing some people here up the wrong way but that is not my intention. It's just that I really dont believe in the whole Jesus thing. Its a lie and provably so.
quote:
Originally posted by MONDO
How can a myth have sex? Unless of course it was written that the fictional character called Jesus did have sex.
Perhaps you and I are myths too... it all depends upon your perspective. I would have personally LOVED to have sex with that MAN... not the myth.
quote:
I'm probably rubbing some people here up the wrong way but that is not my intention. It's just that I really dont believe in the whole Jesus thing. Its a lie and provably so.
I believe that your statement is a lie to yourself. If you intended not to make waves, you would not have added your disclaimer. You are free to your opinions here and encouraged to express them, however, you will also be challenged and asked to support your statements just like the rest of us [8D]. [:D]
Just be aware that many viewpoints are expressed here and the Christian Fundamentalists will challenge your every postulation on the life of Christ. [:)]
Have fun... and I suggest that before the fundi's get to you, you might want to figure out what you will say when they start challenging your ideas. [:D]
Once again... Don't forget to have fun [:D]
Peace and Love,
Kerri
Oh, I love this stuff and I have been challenged many times when I have made this statement that Jesus never existed as a real man that did all those miraculous things. The evidence is there and when I have more time (tommorow) I will write an extensive essay as to why I know that the story of Jesus is a myth.
I'm not trying to change anyones belief systems and if people want to believe the story then good for them. However, I do believe that everyone should have access to all information so as to have an informed opinion or belief system that they have conciously chosen. That way we can all move foward knowing the options that we have.
Watch this space.
Well MONDO, i guess you can disprove Jesus if you want, but i don't see why you would. What's the point other than to rile up the fundamentalists like Lighthouse said? You can't offend me, say whatever you want, but i highly doubt you can disprove Jesus any easier than anyone on the planet can undeniably PROVE his existense. Jesus and all spirituality is a faith thing, based on thought and intent. If anyone chooses to NOT believe something then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist for them. Remember the film Capricorn One? It was the conspiracy theory that NASA faked our 1st moon landing. Some people still think we did. Let em believe it, i don't care.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Dragon
Heh, heh as JC observed: He was "tempted in all things yet was without sin".
Have fun![:P]
Red Dragon
Raven shaman[8D]
(//forums/uploaded/Red%20Dragon/wings.jpg)
So do you believe that conjugal sex is a sin... or sex at all a sin for that matter?
Kerri
Okay Red Dragon,
I guess my question is this... first of all, understand that I'm reading a book that suggests (with very convincing scholarly research I might add) that Jesus married Mary M. right before he was Crusified and that Mary was the Holy grail, the vessel that carried the Holy blood of Christ... his child. That she was brought to france by Joseph of Aramathea (sp?) to protect her and the child of Christ. Here's another thread where I mentioned this. http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12581&whichpage=5
Again, back to the question... You quote, "he was tempted by all things yet without sin." so my question to you is, Do you believe that if he did have sex that it would have been a sin?
Kerri
Dear Mustardseed,
The biblical teaching on fornication and Jewish opposition to premarital sex in Jesus' day make it highly unlikely that Jesus had sex. It seems better to ask whether he ever got married. If he did, then he surely had sex. Many of Jesus' Jewish contemporaries considered it sinful for a man to remain a bachelor after 30. Jesus' brothers and the apostles, including Peter and probably Paul, were all married (1 Corinthianns 9:5). In view of the Catholic identification of Peter as their first Pope, the Catholic insistence on a celibate pope and priesthood seems odd to me. And of course, many of the early popes were married.
Initially, the burden of proof lies with someone who argues that Jesus never married. Despite this, the case for a bachelor Jesus quickly wins the day. He opposes the consensus by celebrating the value of celibacy (Matthew 19:10-11). A few Jews remained single due to their poverty or their sense of spiritual vocation. If Jesus were married, then his wife would have been revered in the early church. Why do we here nothing about her in first century literature?
As for Jesus' romantic liaisons, the evidence from the Nag Hamadi Gnostic Gospels is far too late to have any historical value and is universally rejected by serious scholars. Mary Madgalene was Jesus' closest female disciple and, as such, was a magnet for legendary confabulation in the late second and early third century. The evidence cited in "The DaVinci Code" is historically worthless.
Jesus was largely rejected in his home town, Nazareth. His contemporaries of course did not accept his virgin birth. However, they did agree that he was born too soon. In short, the charge of his illegitimacy quickly became widespread. For example, the scandalized residents of Nazareth ask, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)?" In that culture to call a man the son of his mother is to cast aspersions on his legitimacy even if his presumed father is deceased. Elsewhere, his opponents attack him by pointing out, "At least we are not illegitimate." (John 8:41--implying that Jesus is illegitimate). This charge is repeated in early anti-Christian polemic. Why is this relevant to the question of whether Jesus got married? Because a bastard could not marry a Jewish girl.
Dear Beserk
I apologize for my lateness in answering your post, I am very seldom on the net these days.
I appreciate your observations and have a few questions and thoughts myself. While I originally intended for my post to be a little iconaclastic it was no less a serious question, intended for a discussion, I am glad you took it that way.
I have always thought that the Jewish stand on pre maritial sex was qite liberal. It was under the impression that it was accepted that Jewish men visited "women" and that fornication or adultery was meant to be for women being unfaithful to their husbands. Hence the women caught in adultery was alone as the man was not seen as equal in this "sin". What are your sources that explain otherwise.
As regarding Jesus own words (as they are recorded in the Gospels) extolling celibasy it is indeed a possibility that He was talking about this in a spiritual context as a alegory of devotedness in the spiritual through closeness to God. The Bible as you no doubt know speak in other places about "in the latter days some shall depart from the faith ....forbidding to marry ...." (I am here qouting from memmory and do not put the ref.)
Very little is known about Jesus actual life, and most guesses regarding his lifestyle are based on how society around him behaved, assuming maybe rightly so, that He would in at least some way emulate this behaviour. This is however as far as I can see a asumption and not based on circumstantial evidence and not fact. What do you think??
Your insight is very much appreciated and I look forward to your reply.
No, Jesus was not gay. If He was, you might as well say there was no Jesus (which I'm sure many of you do believe) because the Bible says He was without sin, perfect, and never went against His own teachings. If He did have sex, was gay, or w/e, we'd know the Bible was lying, so why should we believe He existed at all? (Hope ya'll're followin'. [;)])
Also, I believe Jesus was far beyond the spirituality and understanding of such things as we ever could or ever will be. I don't think He needed sex. He understood very much that all He needed was the Father, and to follow Him no matter what.
Why are the people who don't believe Jesus existed commenting on whether He was gay or not....???
Lola, actually, I hadn't even read all the posts. I had to type fast, cause I had to get my stuff ready for school which starts tomorrow (rolls eyes) So I just read the first page, then put in my 2 cents real fast. Wasn't talking to anyone in particular. [;)]
Is having Sex sinful?
Why do you assume that an enlightened being would not enjoy sex?
Lets say we were all enlightened beings, does that mean we would all stop having sex? It doesn't seem to go along with the natural order of things to me.
We know very little about the life of Jesus, what if he was married to MM just prior to the crusifixion and had conjugal sex?
Kerri
No I'm not saying that having sex is sinful. I'm saying that Jesus taught that premarital sex is sinful, therefore it is. I guess He could have been married to Mary, but I highly doubt it because all He was truly interested in was living for God, and growing even closer to Him. With a life like Jesus' I don't really believe anyone would have enough time for a spouse.
Do you not believe thatGod lives within all beings?
Mary M. included?
Besides, MM was with him all the time, traveled with him... Look a bit into Christian Art, you will see Mary Magdeline at the foot of Jesus in many. Additionally, go look at the picture of the last supper in the DaVinci Code thread posted by Kazbadan (in book recommendateions.) You will see MM sitting at the right of Jesus, dressed like him in the exact opposite colors (sort of a Yin-yang) And... she was one of his 3 female traveling companions, the other 2 were his mother and sister. Perhaps the marriage was kept secret otherwise they would have crusified HER too.
Jesus was not married to MM, not did he have sex with her. And the person to the right of Jesus in The Last Supper is John, not MM.
Jesus was not married to MM, not did he have sex with her. And the person to the right of Jesus in The Last Supper is John, not MM.
Oh really?
You might want to check out that painting more carefully, esp. the *cleaned up* version; You are really trying to tell me that person on Jesus' right is a man?
Leonardo is normally very precise in his depictions of men and women. Note how both jesus and what is most certainly a woman wear exactly inverse coloured clothing from each other, suggesting a 'ying-yang' type theme; note also the V shape formed by both figures, which is a symbol often used to represent woman; stepping further away an 'M' becomes clear in the scene.
Note also that there are no 'grails' on the table, which is odd when you remember that the painting is depicting the last supper; instead, everyone is drinking out of glass vessals.
Also note Peter's threatning hand gesture to 'person' on Jesus' right; this suggests that Peter has negative feelings towards said 'person' on jesus' right, an idea supported in the gnostic scriptures, which refers to Peter's jealousy of Magdalene.
Just a few ideas to make you go back and have a closer look!
Douglas
runlola,
quote:
The Urantia Book maintains
AHHHHHH!!! I am currently debating someone on another forum who believes in the Urantia Book, for whatever reason.
Gandalf,
I am not an art expert, so please tell me if Leonardo often used the "yin-yang" theme in his paintings or if this happens to be the only one.
John 21:20-23, "20 Peter, turning around, saw
the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want
him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that
he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"
John was the one reclining on Jesus at the last supper. This is seen in the actual acount:
John 13:21-25, "21 When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me." 22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. 23
There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So
Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking." 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?""
Please tell me Gandalf: how did Leonardo paint young men? Did they ever look effeminate? Would that be consistent with the era in which Leonardo painted The Last Supper?
Leonardo clearly painted The Last Supper according to the biblical account of the last supper. Anything having to do with MM in the painting is pure conjecture.
quote:
Originally posted by exothen
runlola,
quote:
The Urantia Book maintains
AHHHHHH!!! I am currently debating someone on another forum who believes in the Urantia Book, for whatever reason.
Gandalf,
I am not an art expert, so please tell me if Leonardo often used the "yin-yang" theme in his paintings or if this happens to be the only one.
John 21:20-23, "20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" 21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"
John was the one reclining on Jesus at the last supper. This is seen in the actual acount:
John 13:21-25, "21 When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me." 22 The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking. 23 There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, "Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking." 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus' bosom, said to Him, "Lord, who is it?""
Please tell me Gandalf: how did Leonardo paint young men? Did they ever look effeminate? Would that be consistent with the era in which Leonardo painted The Last Supper?
Leonardo clearly painted The Last Supper according to the biblical account of the last supper. Anything having to do with MM in the painting is pure conjecture.
I wonder if Leonardo was in the habit of painting men with breasts... Because if that's John, he has rather large breasts for a guy! Here's a link to an image of Da Vinci's Last Supper:
www.indiezelda.com/davinci/lastsupper.html Study it.
Couldn't the one who he loved have been a woman? Are you suggesting that he would have loved a man more than a woman? Or perhaps you are suggesting that men are more worthy of love than women, therefore loving a woman was unthinkable... take your pick.
Here's a copy of a thread I started a while ago. This is the opening post to that topic, "Did Peter turn Magdeline into a Prostitute?"
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9822
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last night, I was reading the gospel of Mary (Mary Magdalene) from the Nag Hammadi Library where she talks about some information that the Risen Christ imparted to her during a private conversation. Unfortunately, most of the conversation between herself and Christ were missing from the codecies (supposedly people were using the pages to fuel fire) when they were discovered in the Nag Hammadi desert. When reading this, it struck me that it is not so important about the content of their conversation as the way it was received by the other apostles in her company.
My observations in reading these are that the apostle Peter had great contempt for Mary Magdalene because she was a woman. Also based on the language used, I believe that Magdalene was indeed married to Christ and was turned into a prostitute by the church... I will expand upon this later. Over and over again, it is stated that Mary Magdalene was loved by Christ more than any other woman and more than all the other male apostles. In fact, after the risen savior had this conversation with Magdalene, when she told the other apostles of their conversation, Peter said this, "Did he really speak to a woman without our knowledge and not openly? Are we to turn around and listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" In Magdalene's defense, Levi stated to Peter, "Peter you have always been hot tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or law beyond what the savior said."
I used to work in a Glatt Kosher hotel and the clientele was mainly a very religious sect of Judaism known as the Hassidic Jews. It is my opinion that this sect who is very traditional in lifestyle would be very similar to the devout Jews during the time of Christ. In this sect, my observations were that women were seen mainly as second class citizens and their opinions on spiritual matters were seen as insignificant. In fact, in the Synagogue, women are not allowed on the main floor where the lessons are taught and are expected to remain in the balcony or separated off from the men in some way. In fact, they are not even allowed to use the main entrances and are usually relegated to using some side door into the house of worship.
Since Peter and Paul went forth and created the Christian Church, if Peter were indeed a misogynist (woman hater,) wouldn't it make sense that he (being human) had an agenda when going forward and teaching the gospels to the people? If indeed his attitude were one that women were inferior to men (which seems obvious to me,) might he then try to discredit Magdalene and turn her into a prostitute in order to dismiss her role as an equal counterpart in the life of Christ, the Savior? Wouldn't it serve his own self interests to do so, creating a bachelor of Christ (requiring no physical feminine counterpart) and thereby denying Magdalene and (as a result) all women the true understanding that we are as valuable in the eyes of God (Christ being the human incarnation of God in the Christian tradition) as any man?
Kerri
quote:
Originally posted by runlola
In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will lead Mary Magdalene in order to make her male 'so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her manly character. Because of this he gives her the task of joining the weaker Philip on his mission journey. But she is not to join him as a woman. 'As for you, Mary,' he says, 'change your clothing and your outward appearance: reject everything which from the outside suggests a woman.'
What an astoundingly sexist and bigoted thing to do!
What a wonderful thing some of these gospels are. They take what would have been perfectly rational, logical and socially acceptable things at the time and turn them inside out and upside down so that they can fit some bizzare new theological ideal.
Why wouldn't have Jesus taken a wife? Was it not the socially acceptable norm within Jewish custom then, and indeed now, that a man in his early 20's should take a wife? Considering Jesus was in his 30's when his ministry began, he would have been considered something of social misfit had he not. It has been pointed out in the gospels of the New Testament that Jesus had fulfilled ALL of the requirements of Jewish laws and customs.
Kinda common sense that he would have had a wife then, if this is the case, you know, Jewish laws & customs and all.
That's the trouble with religious theologies. In most cases, in order for them to work, common sense has to pack its bags and leave.
James.
This may be a bit off topic but I wonder why in that painting, Christ seems to be grabbing for her wine and the dark haired person in front of Peter seems to be grabbing for her bread. Every time I look at this I cant help but be curious... It seems to me that there is some symbology of the Body and blood of Christ represented in the Wine and the Bread but I don't know enough about the apostles and what they did after his death to know what the symbolism is there.
Also, i think this needs mention... When you paint something, every detail is deliberate because you have to paint it in there. it'a not like taking a picture where you might accidentally get someone with their finger up their nose... it is all deliberate so every detail is there by the artist's choosing.
kerri
"Leonardo da Vinci was working based on the few known documents which describe this meal. As all artists do, he was trying to convey an impression and message, and took "artistic license" with his source material. Just as artists will often rearrange a scene in order to better convey what they are trying to have the viewer feel and think about, so did Leonardo da Vinci rearrange what was *said* about this important event, in order to convey his own thoughts and feelings on the subject."
http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/lastsupper.html
Nay
First, I just want to say that I find something quite funny, hypocritically funny. It is very common in here to see people claim that the gospels and other books in the Bible weren't written by those whose names appear on them. However, when it comes to the "lost gospels" and Gnostic gospels, there is no disputing who the author is. Just thought I would point out that great, rational, consistent thinking.
Lighthouse,
quote:
I wonder if Leonardo was in the habit of painting men with breasts... Because if that's John, he has rather large breasts for a guy!
Umm, I think you are seeing what you want to see. [;)] I don't see any breasts, just folds in John's garment.
My initial point debunks the rest of your post.
What this all comes down to is sensationalism. There is
zero reason to believe that Jesus was married to Mary, or that Mary is in the painting of the last supper. Reason forces one to conclude that the more rational answer is that da Vinci painted a scene right from the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by exothen
What this all comes down to is sensationalism. There is zero reason to believe that Jesus was married to Mary, or that Mary is in the painting of the last supper. Reason forces one to conclude that the more rational answer is that da Vinci painted a scene right from the Bible.
I agree that the Last Supper painting really provides no evidence of a marriage between Jesus and Mary. It really is after all, the interpretations of a man, albeit a very gifted man, but nonetheless, someone who was not there.
There
is however a fair ammount of reason to believe Jesus
was married, possibly to Mary, but still married. Lets assume that the Bible is correct and Jesus was God made flesh. Just because he was God, he was no less pragmatic as a human. Would he really have been accepted among the Jews at the start of his ministry if he was viewed as being at all a social outcast? As I mentioned earlier, Jesus was said to have abided by all the laws and customs. He had to if his ministry was going to be at all effective.
Now think about the Jews of the time. How would they react to one of their own telling them how to love, if that person hadn't even experienced the love that exists between husband and wife? Is not the union (as brought about under the law - that is, within a marriage) between a man and a woman considered by God to be one of the greatest expressions of love?
If you think about some of these ideas with just an ounce of common sense, you see that some concepts promoted within the bible defeat some of the other concepts. It's inconsistent.
James.
If that was the case, again, look at this in a practical way. If they were travelling the land, would they want a full entourage with them?
Still doesn't deny marriage for any of them.
Just a thought.....doesn't a description in the bible of the last supper talk of "the apostle whom He loved" leaning against him. It's usually assumed this is Peter, but the bible never actually states this. What if that was the wife of Jesus, and the name ended up being withheld when the new testament was written because of key questions that apostle asked were too important for even Constantine or his wife to omit?
James.
James,
That's what I was trying to point out with my response to exothen. Why would a woman be excluded from being the one who he loved?
Kerri
...
There is as much proof that he was married as there is that he wasn't.
Kerri
...
quote:
Now think about the Jews of the time. How would they react to one of their own telling them how to love, if that person hadn't even experienced the love that exists between husband and wife? Is not the union (as brought about under the law - that is, within a marriage) between a man and a woman considered by God to be one of the greatest expressions of love?
If you think about some of these ideas with just an ounce of common sense, you see that some concepts promoted within the bible defeat some of the other concepts. It's inconsistent.
Yeah, lets think of some of these ideas. Jesus knew he was going to the cross to die, that is why he was sent, or came. How loving would it be for him to marry someone knowing that he would soon be leaving?
Furthermore, your idea does nothing to defeat anything else in the Bible since the love and marriage between and man and woman is used as a metaphor for God's love for people and the Church. Jesus is God so he loved people in a way that is consistent with marriage.
Gandalf would do a much more eloquent job of this for me and could explain some of the religious significance in Anointing someone before death. Jesus was anointed BY MARY with Oil before his death. This is the smearing of perfumed oil upon the brow which was done by a High preistess or a woman of the highest significance within religious customs. I have done a quick google search here and have come up with some papers written by other scholars like Gandalf in order to make this point more clearly.
I've snipped a few sources here--
The following is from this site; http://www.thewhitemoon.com/mary/magdalene.html
Perhaps the strongest, piece of evidence is the anointing of Jesus with the sacred oil, an event which (uncharacteristically) was recorded in all four New Testament Gospels, pointing to its significance. The anointing of the Jesus' head with oil (as described in Mark 14:3-4) is an unmistakable symbol of The Sacred Marriage, a ceremony performed by temple priestesses.
Here is a definition of the word anoint:
The practice of anointing with perfumed oil was common among the Hebrews. (1.) The act of anointing was significant of consecration to a holy or sacred use; hence the anointing of the high priest (Ex. 29:29; Lev. 4:3) and of the sacred vessels (Ex. 30:26). The high priest and the king are thus called "the anointed" (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:20; Ps. 132:10). Anointing a king was equivalent to crowning him (1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 2:4, etc.). Prophets were also anointed (1 Kings 19:16; 1 Chr. 16:22; Ps. 105:15). The expression, "anoint the shield" (Isa. 21:5), refers to the custom of rubbing oil on the leather of the shield so as to make it supple and fit for use in war.
Here's a good link, well thought out and very scholarly explaining the slanderous nature that the Church has treated Mary Magdalene. http://lor.trincoll.edu/~papers/1996/mary.html
And this one: http://www.the-cauldron.fsnet.co.uk/BLACK_MAR1.htm
Mary of Magdalene is one of the most fascinating and enigmatic figures in the New Testament and her unique relationship to Jesus has never been adequately explained. In the gospels she was also known as Mary of Bethany and was (mis)represented in non-Biblical clerical sources as a prostitute and adulterer. In John 11:2 she is the sister of Lazarus who Jesus 'raised from the dead'. Some writers believe this particular 'miracle' was a coded reference to a death and rebirth initiation into the Christian mysteries. Mark 14:3 describes how Jesus visited Bethany and he was anointed by a woman. She used an ointment made from a plant called spikenard contained in an alabaster jar. This 'woman with the alabaster jar' has been identified as Mary Magdalene. By this symbolic act she was recognising Jesus as the messiah or Christos 'the anointed one'. He was the sacred king, the scapegoat, who must die for his people that their sins are cleansed. Jesus himself acknowledged this fact when he remarked that by her action the woman had prepared him for burial. In the pagan rituals of Sumeria, Babylonia and Canaan the ritual anointing of the sacred king with oil was carried out by the priestess or royal bride. She was the representative of the goddess and this ritual act was a prelude to the 'sacred marriage' of the God and Goddess.
Kerri
Good arguments Shinobi.[^] Well said.
"Again, none of this is proof against his being married, but folks are really putting lot of energy into this when, short of new archeological evidence, there is nothing to stand on."
This is indeed true.
Spiritual understanding will not be gained through discussing religious differences.
[:)]
James.
Well I believe he did. It only says that "he was in all things tempted yet without sin" this scripture is always the last stand for most Christians. But why could he not have enjoyed a nice f..., like most of us do. What is sinfull about that?. It seems tha Devil would like to take credit for sex when it was really Gods greatest creation. Be fruitful and multiply. However the Dark side would like to make folks believe that if you enjoy "that" you are one of his. I think he had himself a heaven of a time and why not, we all do it dont we. (some more than others maybe) but we all do it.[;)]
Regards Mustardseed
The reason Jesus is said not to have sex is that sex is considered a sin, especially if one looks at in the regards of 'a good ----' as you so elegantly put it.
The reason the virgin conception is so often spouted is that children were thought to be born sinners, inheriting the sin from the sex that conceived them into being. As he was born without sex (unless you have strange views of how exactly God impregnated Mary...), he would therefore be born without any sins, and have the potential to be sinless.
Perhaps the fact that he was born without sin was the very reason he could not sin.... although based on some of what I've read, he has sinned. It says he hasn't, but he's stolen and disrespected his parents (and encouraged others to do it) so I don't see how that could be explained away.
Dear Tyciol,
From my perspective as a biblical academician, you are often wrong, but unlike other New Age fundamentalists on this site, you are usually wrong intelligently. I will confine my critique to just 8 points:
(1) [Tyciol:] "the reason that Jesus is said not to have sex is that sex is considered a sin..." No, the Bible does not consider sex a sin. Indeed the Song of Songs is a celebration of erotic love.
(2) No, the Bible does not teach that sin is a sexually transmitted disease.
The Old Testament writers were more concerned to trace the origin of sin existentially in human predicaments than to indulge in historical and cosmological speculation about sin's origin. The notion that sin arises from our creatureliness as such or from sexual procreation does not appear in the Old Testament. Such passages as Psalm 51:5, Job 14:1, and 15:14 go no further than alleging that humanity is sinful from the time of conception and that frail "flesh" is prone to all the evils of life. Elaine Pagels has recently written a book that points to St. Augustine as the culprit for the invention of the ill-conceived modern doctrine of original sin.
(3) Pre-Christian Judaism anticipates a Messiah who would be human--not divine--and yet sinless (so Psalms of Solomon 17:40f.; Testament of Judah 24:1; Testament of Levi 18:9). New Testament theology adopts this Jewish perspective and adds to it a belief in Christ's divinity and the image of Christ as the flawless Passover Lamb of God:
"For you know that is was not with perishable things. . .that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH OR DEFECT (1 Peter 1:19)."
"God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:20)."
(4) In the New Testament, the sinlesness of Christ is a function of both His status as the Jewish Messiah and His status as God's Passover Lamb; it is never treated as a function of His virgin birth. On the contrary, in Greco-Roman mythology, virgin births are associated with the sexual immorality of the gods (e.g. Zeus's infidelity to his goddess wife Hera) and the virginal offspring is not deemed sinless.
(5) [Tyciol:] "But he's stolen and disrespected his parents (and encouraged others to do it)." You can produce no example of Jesus stealing. Perhaps you have in mind the account of Jesus and His disciples picking heads of grain in someone else's fields (Mark 2:23-24). If so, you don't understand Jewish law. Such pilfering was encouraged as an act of charity towards hungry travelers. The Pharisees object not to the act per se, but to the fact that the grain is plucked on the Sabbath.
(6) You claim that Jesus "disrespected His parents." True, in Luke 2:41-52 an immature 12-year-old Jesus leaves his family without notifying them and wows the Jewish teachers in the Temple with His knowledge. But you must draw a distinction between sin and the maturation process by which a child learns by trial and error. This distinction is addressed in Hebrews: "Although He [Jesus] was a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered (5:8)." This text implies a time when Jesus was disobedient or, at least, non-obedient. So that would make Him a sinner by biblical standards, right? Wrong! Despite the implication that Jesus learned by trial and error, Hebrews insists: "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one [Jesus] who has beem tempted IN EVERY WAY JUST AS WE ARE--YET WITHOUT SIN (4:15)." Note the implication that Jesus had no advantage over us by virtue of His divine nature. To incarnate, the divine Son "emptied Himself" of all His divine prerogatives (Philippians 2:6-7).
Hebrews conceives of sin as a condition, not a series of bad acts. As a condition, sin is that which separates us from God. Jesus is sinless in the sense that, despite the fact that He might occasionally have been a "naughty boy," nothing He ever did terminated His oneness with the Father (e.g. John 10:30).
(7) You claim that Jesus "encouraged others to do it [i. e. disrespect their parents. Only 3 texts could possibly create theat impression.
"To another he said, 'Follow me.' But he said, `First let me go and bury my father.' But Jesus said to him, `Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke (9:59-60)."
This text seems shocking until it is recognized as a rather conventional use of Semitic hyperbole, a teaching device commonly used by Jewish teachers in Jesus' era. This saying is uttered in the context of a discussion of common excuses for not following Jesus. The point is not to leave without saying good-bye to one's family, but to elevate one's responsibilities towards God above those towards family, if the two must clash. The inevitability of such clashes is stressed in another example of Jesus' Semitic hyperbole: "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother. . .and one's foes will be members of one's own household (Matthew 10:36)." Jesus is merely saying that family conflict is the regrettably inevitable result of His teaching. After all, this is the same Jesus who teaches, "Blessed are the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9).!"
Nor does Luke 14:26 imply anything different: "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother. . .cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26)." In Aramaic "hate" is merely a euphemism for the wrong priority.
The true meaning of the saying is clear from its variant in Matthew 10:37:
"whoever loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me." So there is really no contradiction between these sayings and Jesus' teaching about the need to love and honor one's parents:
"You know the commandments:. . .Honor your father and mother (Mark 10:19)."
"God said, `Honor your father and your mother' . . .But you say that whoever tells his father or mother, `Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God,' so that person need not honor the father. So for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God (Matthew 15:4-6)."
You raise a more important issue with your challenge that deliberate astral projection is contrary to biblical teaching. When I find the time, I will post my response to that in the appropriate thread.
Berserk
Damn... Berserk I greatly await that post.
Good job. :)
To be truthful, I already did know the true meaning behind Jesus' words of cleaving the families, but I find it's an easy way to tear up an argument as most Christians aren't well informed enough about the testaments to provide a counter-argument, you on the other hand, are. Learning about parts of the bible like this is a message I want to get through to Christians. They're all so gung-ho about family values and protecting their own that they don't really care about Christ's real teachings, and putting it before all else.
The majority of people who call themselves Christian do so only because it's what their family wants, to please the elders and those who take it seriously, while they rarely do and indulge in sin. While I smile at this weakening in the chains of faith, the hypocritical picking and choosing of what to follow and when to use the Bible (like to condemn gays) is completely asinine, and annoys me to no end.
This Hebrew custom about free grain for travelers is definitely news to me, thank you for telling me about it. I'll have to inform the person I learned it from to amend their web page stating it as a bad example of Jesus' morality.
Even so, did Jesus take it on the Sabbath when he wasn't supposed to? If so, wouldn't that be stealing because people aren't supposed to take it then?
Jesus IS fully human, but it also did say he was fully God. I take that to mean his flesh was mortal (duh!) but he was fully filled with the Lord's spirit.
The virgin birth thing, like I said, is just an old superstition, I just presented it as a theory for why sex was associating with sin.
Definitely, as other posters here have alleged, sex without marriage is surely sin? I haven't quite read enough to discern that, though modern-day Christians do seem to have the 'wait until marriage' attitude, even though very rarely do they follow it.
When I referred to Jesus himself disrespecting his parents, I wasn't referring to him going off with the priests to read the scriptures. I'm pretty sure Mary never said to him "Jesus, never run away from home to study with priests!", so he was just an overenthusiastic youth who ran off to a temple, it drew him in.
What I was referring to was when he said to Mary "woman, what have I do to with thee?" Try saying that to your mother today, she'll get ticked.
[Tyciol:] "Even so, did Jesus take it [the grain] on the Sabbath when he wasn't supposed to? If so, wouldn't that be stealing because people weren't supposed to take it then?"
______________________
Here you are touching on a profound problem overlooked by most Christians, a problem that warrants a separate thread entitled something like "Jesus' and Paul's Morality." Jesus opposed the excessive number of Jewish moral absolutes, including their legion Sabbath laws. His act here was not theft, but a revolutionary new vision of a non-legalistic morality. To explain this, I will later create a new thread.
[Tyciol:] "What I was referring to when he said to Mary, `Woman, what have I to do with thee?" Try saying that to your mother today. She'll get ticked."
_______
Here you have been misled by the poor KJV translation and by a first century cultural quirk that no longer applies in our day. It seems best to quote Raymond Brown's magisterial commentary on John (2:3):
"`Woman': This is not a rebuke nor an impolite term, nor an indication of a lack of affection. (In 19:26 the dying Jesus uses it for Mary.) It was Jesus' normal, polite way of addressing women (Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 20:13); and as such, it is attested in Greek writing also."
In the KJV translation, Jesus' question, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" is a mistranslation of a Greek idiom that literally means "What to me and to you?" and should be translated, "What has this concern of yours to do with me?" So Jesus is not saying, "Why are you bothering me?" but rather "How is their wine shortage relevant to me? The implication is that Jesus had no plans to turn the water into wine until the idea was implanted in His mind by His mother.
In Sepphoris, just a few miles down the road from Cana, there was a temple of Dionysos. Central to the cult of Dionysos was the belief that this Greek god changed water into wine. By duplicating this miracle, Jesus found a way to get the attention of Galilean Greeks.
As for your skepticism about the virgin birth, there is no way of making something that private and exotic credible to a skeptic. But it does seem worthwhile to make 3 observations:
(1) The notion of Jesus' illegitimacy is traceable to His lifetime. The hostile residents of Nazareth jeer Jesus' with the taunt, "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary...(Mark 6:3)?" In that culture, to call someone the son of his mother is to cast aspersions on his legitimacy. True, Joseph is probably alreadly dead. But if Joseph were Jesus' father, one would still expect Jesus to be portrayed as the son of Joseph. Jesus' opponents retort, "[At least] we are not illegitimate children (John 8:41)!"
n Greek the "we" is emphatic and implies Jesus' illegitimacy. In Jewish law, a man deemed a bastard was not permitted to marry a nice Jewish girl. In my view, the bastard charge is the most likely reason why Jesus never married.
It therefore seems unlikely that Jesus is the natural son of Joseph. Whether one embraces the virgin birth will depend on one's openness to the miraculous and on what one thinks of Mary's character and the sexually conservative culture that shaped her. Beyond this, the case for and against the virgin birth is very complex and I'll refrain from assessing it further in this post.
But let me share one of my bizarre discoveries. John Chrysostom, bishop of Antioch, lived near Aleppo, an early Jewish Christian center ultimately traceable to the first Jerusalem church. John came across the tradition that after Joseph died, Mary lived with Joseph's brother Clopas as his wife in a state called levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). Such a marriage would be illegal if Jesus were the natural son of Joseph, but mandatory if Joseph died without natural children. The firstborn of Mary's sexual union with Clopas would be deemed Joseph's son. If this marriage occurred, it would mean that both Mary and Joseph's brother believed that Jesus was born of a virgin. John Chrystom lives in an age where the church embraces Mary's immaculate conception and perpetual virginity. But those doctrines are clearly a Catholic imposition on an earlier Jewish Christian tradition here.
The tradition, though far from convincing, can be defended on 4 grounds:
(1) The Jewish Christian historian Hegesippus refers to Jesus' brothers as His cousins also. The Catholic claim that the Hebrew for "brother" can mean "cousin" is indefensible. But if Mary married Jesus' uncle Clopas, then Clopas's sons, formerly Jesus' cousins, wuuld legally become His brothers also!
(2) Jesus has a brother named "Joseph" (Matthew 13:55). In Jewish culture sons received the names of their grandfathers, but not the names of their fathers, except in the case of the royal family or the family of the hereditary high priesthood. There is only one exception to this rule in the countless Jewish family lineages reported in late antiquity. It is unlikely that Jesus' brother Joseph is a son of Joseph, Sr. and more likely that he is the son of Clopas.
(3) In early rabbinic Judaism Jesus is known as the son of Penteri, not the son of Joseph. The rabbis sometimes misunderstood Greek nouns as proper names. The Greek for "husband's brother" is "penterides." In its Hebrew translation, the Greek suffix "ides" would be dropped. It is possible that the rabbis remember Jesus as the product of a levirate marriage. In other words, if Clopas marries the widow Mary, then Clopas legally becomes Jesus' father-guardian. Hence, "Jesus the son of the husband's brother" or the son of a levir.
(4) Finally, I am haunted by this question: if the tradition of Mary's levirate marriage is fictional, why on earth would it have been invented?
Berserk
More excellent points that further clarify me of the fallacy of some of the arguments used to debase Christianity. It's a good thing they're not the primary ones :)
My question is this, and I will put it bluntly: why did Joseph never shag Mary, but his brother did? Is it possible he was infertile? Was Joseph's brother the older or younger?
Dear Tyciol,
Early Christian tradition sheds no light on whether Joseph was older than his brother Clopas. Your question about Joseph's possible infertility is a good one. An affirmative answer is suggested by the Proto-Gospel of James, a totally fictional late second century Gospel that, among other things, was written to confirm the miraculous birth and perpetual virginity of Mary. This Gospel claims that Joseph was an elderly widower when he married Mary. The Gospel is a Gentile fabrication that badly distorts Jewish customs, culture, and institutions. It is too late to contain any historically important material. Yet its teaching about Mary's perpetual virginity is Catholic dogma. The great problem for this dogma is Matthew 1:25: "But he [Joseph] did not know her until she gave birth to a son." As you are doubtless aware, in the biblical era, the expression "he knew her" means "he had sex with her." So the NIV rightly translates this verse:
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." The clear implication is that, after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary had lots of sex.
So if the theory that Jesus' brothers were originally his cousins is correct, then clearly Joseph seems to have been infertile.
Our best guesses as to the age of Joseph and Mary at their betrothal must be gleaned from the Jewish customs of the times. Mary was just 12-15 years old. Jewish men were expected to marry around age 21 and no later then 30. In rabbinic tradition, a Jewish male was ordinarily considered to be sinning if he refused to marry. That is why a good reason must be found for Jesus' celibacy. As I have already argued, I think the best reason is that Jesus was widely considered a bastard and bastards could not marry a nice Jewish girl. One can't expect non-Christian Jews to embrace the virgin birth. But the charge of illegitimacy at least seems to suggest that the virgin birth claims are traceable to Jesus' lifetime.
Man I feel bad for Joseph now... so... what do you think he did until the J-kid came about? Everything but sex, some of the manger animals, or was he just really disciplined. I've see art depicting Mary, if she's anything like that I'd think it would be hard to resist.
Quote[Tyciol:] "Even so, did Jesus take it [the grain] on the Sabbath when he wasn't supposed to? If so, wouldn't that be stealing because people weren't supposed to take it then?"
______________________
Here you are touching on a profound problem overlooked by most Christians, a problem that warrants a separate thread entitled something like "Jesus' and Paul's Morality." Jesus opposed the excessive number of Jewish moral absolutes, including their legion Sabbath laws. His act here was not theft, but a revolutionary new vision of a non-legalistic morality. To explain this, I will later create a new thread.
Jesus did numerous "illegal" acts on the Sabbath. These actions were not immoral, in the sense of harming others, although they offended the sensibilities of those who were adhering very strictly to the regulations set up for observing the Sabbath. They also were seen by the religio-political leaders of the Jews as threatening "the system." Some acts are such that they would have been laudable if not done on the Sabbath - like healing the sick. Others, like going into the temple and eating the consecrated bread, would not have been acceptable in any cicumstance,
unless one were a priest (which brings up a whole other sidebar).
Jesus explains very cleary the reason for breaking these Sabbath regulations. He is trying to reestablish a right understanding of the purpose of Sabbath (and worship/spirituality in general). The "Law," meaning the spiritual code of the Jews, was not meant to be an unbearable yoke for the people, it was meant to be a guide for spiritual progress and right attitude toward God and neighbor - it was meant to serve the human person, not enslave them. Thus he says, when confronted, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, rather the Sabbath was made for man."